Author
Topic: ROCOR vs EP (Read 41525 times)

If you are in ROCOR, why are you in ROCOR? What keeps you there? Why is ROCOR 'better' than the GOA, OCA, etc.? Is it 'better'? Would you attend a non-ROCOR church for services? Do you believe that the churches under the EP have Grace? If you are in a church under the EP, do you believe ROCOR is schismatic? Do you believe that they have Grace? Would you go to a ROCOR church for services? Do you believe that ROCOR is prideful in its position against communion with EP churches? If you are in ROCOR, how would you react if a friend of yours (in ROCOR) went to the GOA, OCA, etc?

Sorry for all of the questions, but I am REALLY curious about all of them. I would ask them on another site, but this site is the friendliest of them all, and I am hoping that we won't get into any heated debates. Thank you in advance for your answers!!

If you are in a church under the EP, do you believe ROCOR is schismatic?

I am in GOA and I do not believe that ROCOR is schismatic. I see no reason that they should have to go back under the MP. Based on history, I think they have very good reasons for not going back under the MP.

If you are in a church under the EP, do you believe ROCOR is schismatic? Do you believe that they have Grace? Would you go to a ROCOR church for services? Do you believe that ROCOR is prideful in its position against communion with EP churches?

Schismatic? Yes.

Grace? Yes.

Merely go and pray with other Orthodox Christians (ROCOR ones)? Yes and I have.

I don't know if it is prideful or not, division of this sort is tragic and to be lamented and I pray for an end to it.

I can't make any accusation of pride.

I hoped for a change in the situation after the fall of the USSR. One must take into consideration the chaos after 1917 and the history up to the formation of the ROCOR.

Logged

Tómame como al tequila, de un golpe y sin pensarlo. - Ricardo Arjona

I'd be a fool to surrender when I know I can be a contender and if everbody's a sinner then everybody can be a winner ...I'll see you when yo

How can ROCOR be schismatic when it is in union with the JP and Serbia? The EP is not the criterion for Orthodoxy--if it were then the MP would have been schismatic when in Feb 1996 it broke communion with Constantinople for 30 days.

I do not believe any Orthodox bishop in America believes ROCOR to be schismatic. The history of ROCOR prevents such a designation. Its communion with canonical Churches prevents it from being so as well.

I have read a bit about ROCOR and how it got its start during the tumultuous days of the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia, or rather in fleeing that revolution. The history is extremely confusing and complex and would be difficult for someone much more well versed in canon law than I am to disentangle.

I see ROCOR as Orthodox. I have attended ROCOR services. I respect its people and clerics and their stand for the Orthodox faith.

How does one define schism exactly? Is a temporary interruption in inter-communion a schism?

Logged

The first condition of salvation is to keep the norm of the true faith and in no way to deviate from the established doctrine of the Fathers.- Pope St. Hormisdas

Just as part of the argument, do you believe the OCA was schismatic prior to 1971?

anastasios

anastasios,

It was in '70 that the OCA was given autocephaly. So before '70 given the position of the rest of the Orthodox Churches (not just two but all the others - even apparently the MP IIRC) I would say not. It was an irregular situation caused but an irregular happening/situation. That is something we were taught in undergrad Psych that an abnormal situation elicits an abnormal response.

I must defer to the majority of Orthodox Churches, not just two nor to my own opinion in this matter.

Tony

Logged

Tómame como al tequila, de un golpe y sin pensarlo. - Ricardo Arjona

I'd be a fool to surrender when I know I can be a contender and if everbody's a sinner then everybody can be a winner ...I'll see you when yo

I do not believe any Orthodox bishop in America believes ROCOR to be schismatic. anastasios

Perhaps you should offer a definition of schism and schismatic. Considering what happend in the past 10 years in at least two dioceses here in the USA, I can't imagine the heads of those dioceses thinking as you.

Just my own imaginings I am sure.

Logged

Tómame como al tequila, de un golpe y sin pensarlo. - Ricardo Arjona

I'd be a fool to surrender when I know I can be a contender and if everbody's a sinner then everybody can be a winner ...I'll see you when yo

'Cause it depends on th REASON that they are not in communion with the EP.

And IMHO, the reason why they are not has nothing to do with religion, but has everything to do with power and money.

My understanding (and I certainly may be wrong) is that they believe in the same sacraments, creed.. etc.

So why are they schismatic? Because they do not want to go back under the MP. I don't blame them for that.

Well I am not ROCOR so I think it is more reasonable for a ROCOR communicant to speak for that position. But, I understood it has to do with those two accusations, both of which appear to me to have to with religion, especieally "Pan-Heresy"

Logged

Tómame como al tequila, de un golpe y sin pensarlo. - Ricardo Arjona

I'd be a fool to surrender when I know I can be a contender and if everbody's a sinner then everybody can be a winner ...I'll see you when yo

ROCiE and ROAC departed from their canonical bishops, as did HOCNA, so they are schismatics and in my opinion probably graceless and unOrthodox (although I will not condemn individual faithful in these groups).

Tony,

ROCOR was invited to join SCOBA when it formed. ROCOR in Europe is a part of the Orthodox bishops' association in Europe I am told (correct me if I am wrong). ROCOR chose to break communion with the GOA, not the other way around, so it is not like they are condemned schismatics from that POV.

As far as bad actions, the JP does the same thing to the Antiochians. Metro. Philip disallowed concelebration this year between Antiochians and the JP in the USA. I do not believe that makes any of them schismatic--because they are still in union with other Orthodox Churches. And Metro. Philip never calls the JP faithful schismatic to my knowledge (correct me if I am wrong).

TomS,

Many Protestants would say that external splits don't affect the body of Christ intrinsically. The reason that we are not Protestants in this regard is 1) these splits clearly show that the person leaving is not Orthodox any longer (which is why I don't think ROCOR fits the category, because everyone still thinks ROCOR is Orthodox). 2) the splittees are a very very very small minority--HOCNA has around 1000 faithful!!

I do not believe any Orthodox bishop in America believes ROCOR to be schismatic. anastasios

Perhaps you should offer a definition of schism and schismatic. Considering what happend in the past 10 years in at least two dioceses here in the USA, I can't imagine the heads of those dioceses thinking as you.

Just my own imaginings I am sure.

I offered my analogy to the JP vs. Met. Philip thing in my previous post but I offer this just to clarify: I do not believe any Orthodox bishop in the US thinks ROCOR itself to be schismatic (I could be wrong of course!) BUT I do not doubt that the bishops who lost priests/people to ROCOR think that THOSE people are schismatics. If someone left the Antiochians under suspension and went to the JP, and the JP received them, they would be schismatics too, the JP would not be schismatic itself but would be guilty of a canonical infraction (this happened with some of the Ben Lomond people).

Hypo-Ortho

Anastasios, we have a problem when we have no vehicle to call to task and put on the carpet those who are guilty of these major canonical infractions wherein one jurisdiction, even if it be an ancient Patriarchate such as that of Jerusalem, totally disregards the canonical actions of another jurisdiction and interferes therein, such as in the Ben Lomond situation between the Antiochians and the JP.

We also have examples of almost this same kind of thing between the OCA and the ROCOR, wherein the ROCOR will receive priests suspended by the OCA as if they are in good standing. I know also of at least one priest received by the OCA from the ROCOR, but I don't know the details of this priests's exiting status from the ROCOR. But, as you well know, there are usually no canonical releases ever given to clergy of either of these latter two jurisdicitions to go from one to the other.

You asked many questions, so please forgive the short answers! (Check my profile for a background on where I'm coming from)

Quote

If you are in ROCOR, why are you in ROCOR? What keeps you there?

Because it has the spirit (or savor) of the Church to a greater extent than any jurisdiction in America. ROCOR has, for the most part, kept its conservative, traditionalist Orthodox roots, and because of this it hasn't fallen into the errors that many other groups have (e.g., ecumenism, many modernistic practices such as allowing birth control and communing at heterodox churches, changing the calendar, etc.) ROCOR is not perfect--when one tries to be conservative there is always the danger of being legalistic, closed-minded, and so forth; some fall into these dangers (me included). However, for the most part, ROCOR is the "most salty" of all the jurisdictions in America--and really in the world.

Some see the "russianness" of ROCOR as a bad thing, but it's really just them being consistent. They have always maintained that they are a Church in exile... a Church waiting to return home and again become part of the whole, undivided Church of Russia. We can't expect them to have an "American phase" somewhere in between leaving Russia and reestablishing the Russian Church! As one ROCOR Priest (who later became my spiritual father) told me before I became ROCOR, look for the truth, that's what's important. And so now, this decidedly American guy is happily sojourning in the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia.

Quote

Would you attend a non-ROCOR church for services?

I attended an OCA Church for vespers two weeks ago, and my wife and I plan on again visiting the Romanian (OCA) monastery in Ellwood City, PA, sometime soon. So... yes.

Quote

Do you believe that the churches under the EP have Grace?

I'd like to think so. I'm not as sure as I used to be. I guess they do. Don't quote me on that.

Quote

If you are in ROCOR, how would you react if a friend of yours (in ROCOR) went to the GOA, OCA, etc?

But all my ROCOR friends are going the opposite direction! For me, it would depend on a number of factors, most importantly whether he had became ROCOR later in his life or not. For someone to have been born into ROCOR and then switch, I guess I would majorly disagree with that move. However, I think it'd be a much worse move were someone to become ROCOR later in life and then decide to leave. Why all the changing? What has changed that they wanted to be ROCOR, and now want to leave? Also, why OCA, GOA, or whatever? If they have some problem with ROCOR, why not another more traditionalist jurisdiction, such as GOC? Or at least a jurisdiction with traditionalist aspects to it, such as the Serbs or Jerusalem? I would also let my friend know that in a few years, he might not like what I'd be saying... if the OCA, GOA, etc. kept going down the path they were on. More importantly, he (I hope!) wouldn't like where he was, and would have to "switch back" yet again.

Quote

I would ask them on another site, but this site is the friendliest of them all,

That got me to laugh out loud. Not that I'm disputing what you're saying. Sort of. Lol.

Logged

"The bed is too short to stretch out on, the blanket too narrow to wrap around you." (Isa. 28:20)

Yes, OC.net has won the prestigious Anastasios award for the nicest place on the internet to discuss Orthodoxy! What other Orthodox site actually supports members meeting in person on weekend gettogethers? ;-)

This quote from Chesterton (written while he was an Anglican, oddly enough) is one of my favorite passages from a contemporary western writer. It also happens to (more or less) reflect the way I feel about ROCOR.

Quote

This is the thrilling romance of Orthodoxy. People have fallen into a foolish habit of speaking of orthodoxy as something heavy, humdrum, and safe. There never was anything so perilous or so exciting as orthodoxy. It was sanity: and to be sane is more dramatic than to be mad. It was the equilibrium of a man behind madly rushing horses, seeming to stoop this way and to sway that, yet in every attitude having the grace of statuary and the accuracy of arithmetic. The Church in its early days went fierce and fast with any warhorse; yet it is utterly unhistoric to say that she merely went mad along one idea, like a vulgar fanaticism. She swerved to left and right, so exactly as to avoid enormous obstacles. She left on one hand the huge bulk of Arianism, buttressed by all the worldly powers to make Christianity too worldly. The next instant she was swerving to avoid an orientalism, which would have made it too unworldly.

The orthodox Church never took the tame course or accepted the conventions; the orthodox Church was never respectable. It would have been easier to have accepted the earthly power of the Arians. It would have been easy, in the Calvinistic seventeenth century, to fall into the bottomless pit of predestination. It is easy to be a madman: it is easy to be a heretic. It is always easy to let the age have its head; the difficult thing is to keep one's own. It is always easy to be a modernist; as it is easy to be a snob.

To have fallen into any of those open traps of error and exaggeration which fashion after fashion and sect after sect set along the historic path of Christendom -- that would indeed have been simple. It is always simple to fall; there are an infinity of angles at which one falls, only one at which one stands. To have fallen into any one of the fads from Gnosticism to Christian Science would indeed have been obvious and tame. But to have avoided them all has been one whirling adventure; and in my vision the heavenly chariot flies thundering through the ages, the dull heresies sprawling and prostrate, the wild truth reeling but erect. - G.K. Chesterton, Orthodoxy

« Last Edit: August 14, 2003, 01:45:02 PM by Paradosis »

Logged

"The bed is too short to stretch out on, the blanket too narrow to wrap around you." (Isa. 28:20)

Anastasios, I think you're splitting some hairs pretty finely here. Surely the secular justification for the existence of ROCOR is gone; therefore, why shouldn't the exile end? They are something beyond simply another overlapping jurisdiction, and indeed the remarks by Paradosis would seems to indicate that they've gone beyond the political separation wherein they originated, and have developed elements which the Orthodox here have made negative remarks about. There does appear to me to be schism here, but limited in scope and nature.

What is curious is that the Orthodox core seems to want to minimize this. Personally, I have a great deal of trouble with ROCOR receiving suspended OCA priests; it has a vagante quality to it. It puzzles me that this is tolerated.

Does it also puzzle you that the OCA receive people like "Archbishop" Lazar Puhalo?

First, it is incorrect to say that all the original reasons for seperation are over. The MP still continues to maintain exactly what it has since 1927: that there is nothing wrong with Sergianism. It's not just "newly conceived excuses" that force ROCOR to continue in exile. There is also the problem with Ecumenism, but there is an even greater problem, IMO. If we (ROCOR) were indeed to reunite with the other parts of the Russian Church as one Church, we would be in communion with world Orthodoxy. We would be in communion with Antioch and Constantinople. This is simply unacceptable. ROCOR is Orthodox--and for those who worry of such things, she is "canonical" and "valid" as well. It's become so very common to make everything into a political game; it's odd that those who bewail that "the division is all politics" are normally the ones who refuse to actually look at the issues and are therefore being the most political. My reasons for becoming ROCOR were theological and practical: they had the fulness of the truth.

Logged

"The bed is too short to stretch out on, the blanket too narrow to wrap around you." (Isa. 28:20)

Oddly enough, a ROCORite recently quoted an Anglican in an extremely favorable way on this forum, and the majority of his posts over the last few weeks have been on how we might profitably dialogue with westerners (ie. non-Orthodox). I also talk daily with people who are from the GOA, ROAC, and a host of other jurisdictions--in other words, a wide variety of Orthodox. ROCOR is certainly not reclusive and unwilling to talk with others. Good shot though, you really knocked that straw man to pieces!

Logged

"The bed is too short to stretch out on, the blanket too narrow to wrap around you." (Isa. 28:20)

From Paradosis: If we (ROCOR) were indeed to reunite with the other parts of the Russian Church as one Church, we would be in communion with world Orthodoxy. We would be in communion with Antioch and Constantinople. This is simply unacceptable.

And the problem with all of that is . . .?

Excuse me for saying it, Paradosis, since I have a generally favorable view of ROCOR, but its persistence in maintaining a separate existence gives the appearance of prelates who do not wish to give up comfortable positions of authority. That's what it looks like anyway.

Besides, wasn't it Constantinople that offered what would become ROCOR its first place of refuge?

Logged

The first condition of salvation is to keep the norm of the true faith and in no way to deviate from the established doctrine of the Fathers.- Pope St. Hormisdas

Does it also puzzle you that the OCA receive people like "Archbishop" Lazar Puhalo?

Well, it might if I understood exactly what is the problem with him. Googling for his name produces lots of ordinary news reports and a few ROCOR people who plainly object to him but who don't explain why.

Quote

First, it is incorrect to say that all the original reasons for seperation are over.

The precise words I used were "secular justification". If we are now resorting to religious justifications, then I think we are talking a state of schism with some concessions made, rather than a state of impaired unity.

I'm fairly sure I don't want to know what is wrong with the Antiochians or the EP. I can understand having issues with Alexy-- I have issues with him. But the words you use, Paradosis, seem to me to indicate a slip into a rejection of collegiality in the strongest sense: you reject their criticism as being next to unOrthodox.

Hypo-Ortho

Does it also puzzle you that the OCA receive people like "Archbishop" Lazar Puhalo?

First, it is incorrect to say that all the original reasons for seperation are over. The MP still continues to maintain exactly what it has since 1927: that there is nothing wrong with Sergianism. It's not just "newly conceived excuses" that force ROCOR to continue in exile. There is also the problem with Ecumenism, but there is an even greater problem, IMO. If we (ROCOR) were indeed to reunite with the other parts of the Russian Church as one Church, we would be in communion with world Orthodoxy. We would be in communion with Antioch and Constantinople. This is simply unacceptable. ROCOR is Orthodox--and for those who worry of such things, she is "canonical" and "valid" as well. It's become so very common to make everything into a political game; it's odd that those who bewail that "the division is all politics" are normally the ones who refuse to actually look at the issues and are therefore being the most political. My reasons for becoming ROCOR were theological and practical: they had the fulness of the truth.

O Justin, Justin! What a harsh judge you are. At the Old Calendar celebrations marking the 100th anniverary of the death of St. Seraphim of Sarov in Diveyevo, His Beatitude, +Metropolitan HERMAN, Primate of the OCA, and His Holiness, +PAVLE, Patriarch of Serbia, were His Holiness, Patriarch Alexy II's principal concelebrants (check out the story with photos at www.oca.org). And, as you well know, hierarchs of the Serbian Patriarchate regularly serve with those of the ROCOR! And here we have Serbian Patriarch PAVLE personally serving with the Primates of both the MP and the OCA. Ironic, no?

If we (ROCOR) were indeed to reunite with the other parts of the Russian Church as one Church, we would be in communion with world Orthodoxy. We would be in communion with Antioch and Constantinople. This is simply unacceptable. ROCOR is Orthodox--and for those who worry of such things, she is "canonical" and "valid" as well. It's become so very common to make everything into a political game; it's odd that those who bewail that "the division is all politics" are normally the ones who refuse to actually look at the issues and are therefore being the most political. My reasons for becoming ROCOR were theological and practical: they had the fulness of the truth.

I know about Athanasius contra mundum but:

1. This sounds like vagante ecclesiology.

2. Who is 'Orthodox'? Addendum: ROCOR is Eastern Orthodox, not only because it has the same creed and practices as EOs and even the right 'feeling' but because it is in the Eastern Orthodox communion, thanks to the Church of Serbia.

3. In an article whose link I posted on my blog Aug. 11, Fr Chad Hatfield wrote that as an Orthodox (and unlike Anglicans and Catholics) he didn't need to seek 'a church within the church' or 'defend the Church of God' within the church anymore: now the (Orthodox) Church defends him. This contradicts that.

I imagine it would sound vagante to you Serge, since you hold to a neo-papal-patriarchal ecclesiology. It's somewhat like the Monophysites calling the Orthodox "Nestorians".

PS. And to clarify: no, I am not saying you are not Orthodox, just pointing out that from an incorrect perspective one makes incorrect judgments about others. I don't claim to have a perfect perspective--far from it!--but I think I can see well enough to see that you are wrong on this point.

« Last Edit: August 15, 2003, 02:01:59 PM by Paradosis »

Logged

"The bed is too short to stretch out on, the blanket too narrow to wrap around you." (Isa. 28:20)

One problem with that is that they commune and concelebrate with heretics. Just their "ecumenical activity" is enough, in itself, to make ROCOR stay away. Some stay less away than others (it's my understanding that ROCOR participates in the European version of SCOBA to some extent), but we certainly wouldn't have full communion. If we would be ok with that, then we wouldn't be seperated from the various local Churches even now; but because of love we remain apart. And because of love we seek union in a correct faith. Unfortunately too many people seem to have gotten it into their heads that "it's all political" or "they just like to be apart," and so unity becomes all that much more difficult.

Logged

"The bed is too short to stretch out on, the blanket too narrow to wrap around you." (Isa. 28:20)

Here is a question to ROCOR communicants: Is it your understanding that by your communion with Serbia and the JP you are thus in communion with "World Orthodoxy"? So, as if the JP and Serbia are conduits and communion is a current you are in communion with the MP and the EP and the GOA and the OCA? Do you understand this is the position of ROCOR?

Logged

Tómame como al tequila, de un golpe y sin pensarlo. - Ricardo Arjona

I'd be a fool to surrender when I know I can be a contender and if everbody's a sinner then everybody can be a winner ...I'll see you when yo

ROCiE and ROAC departed from their canonical bishops, as did HOCNA, so they are schismatics and in my opinion probably graceless and unOrthodox (although I will not condemn individual faithful in these groups).

Would you be willing to make the same appraisal of the Nestorians, Monophysites, Roman Catholics, etc.? (schismatic and graceless)

As one who struggles with basic fundamental questions like "Does God care" or "Does he exist" this whole thing as to who in Orthodoxy has grace or no grace because they commune heretics, etc. is downright despairing and confusing. It makes finding the way to salvation into a cruel rat race.

And, as you well know, hierarchs of the Serbian Patriarchate regularly serve with those of the ROCOR! And here we have Serbian Patriarch PAVLE personally serving with the Primates of both the MP and the OCA. Ironic, no?

Dear Hypo-Ortho,

This is curious news to me. I asked a school mate of mine if he knows for certain that the Serbian Patriarchate is in communion with ROCOR. He said that is what he heard but made the qualification "you will not see any bishops concelebrate." Of course he can be wrong, but I tend to think that since he is in the Serbian Church he is more informed of those things than those of us without.

Can you offer any links or other sort of substantiation?

Tony

Logged

Tómame como al tequila, de un golpe y sin pensarlo. - Ricardo Arjona

I'd be a fool to surrender when I know I can be a contender and if everbody's a sinner then everybody can be a winner ...I'll see you when yo

Sorry, I drove 14 hours yesterday to NC and now I am on vacation. I would say schism would be departing from one's lawful hierarch for any reason other than heresy, or breaking communion with ALL Orthodox Churches for some reason other than heresy. ROCOR departed from the MP due to 1) exile and 2) due to the bad way Pat. Tikhon was being held and forced to issue contradictory ukaze"s", and broke with the GOA over perceived heresy so I would say hence they are not schismatics.

And, as you well know, hierarchs of the Serbian Patriarchate regularly serve with those of the ROCOR! And here we have Serbian Patriarch PAVLE personally serving with the Primates of both the MP and the OCA. Ironic, no?

Dear Hypo-Ortho,

This is curious news to me. I asked a school mate of mine if he knows for certain that the Serbian Patriarchate is in communion with ROCOR. He said that is what he heard but made the qualification "you will not see any bishops concelebrate." Of course he can be wrong, but I tend to think that since he is in the Serbian Church he is more informed of those things than those of us without.

Can you offer any links or other sort of substantiation?

Tony

I wrote an email letter to the Western Serbian Diocese of the US and asked their chancellor if they are in communion with ROCOR and they said, "yes."

ROCiE and ROAC departed from their canonical bishops, as did HOCNA, so they are schismatics and in my opinion probably graceless and unOrthodox (although I will not condemn individual faithful in these groups).

Would you be willing to make the same appraisal of the Nestorians, Monophysites, Roman Catholics, etc.? (schismatic and graceless)

Seraphim

I probably did not make myself clear in previous posts. I do not think that JUST BECAUSE one is schismatic that they are ipso facto graceless: I believe that the Kievan Patriarchate has grace (although I think it is sad they elected Pat. Filaret as their third patriarch when he was already deposed).

I do not think that any of the Old Calendar Greek Churches EXCEPT HOCNA are graceless.

I believe HOCNA and ROCiE to be graceless because of the evil way they separated from their hierarchs--not merely because they are out of communion with other Orthodox Churches.

As one who struggles with basic fundamental questions like "Does God care" or "Does he exist" this whole thing as to who in Orthodoxy has grace or no grace because they commune heretics, etc. is downright despairing and confusing. It makes finding the way to salvation into a cruel rat race.

Very good points, Sinjin--a sad situation we find ourselves in. Yet the Church has always had these problems; the Gnostics were around even at the apostolic age.

It is a book published by the Holy Orthodox Church in North America (HOCNA) and is a history of the Old Calendar Movement. I would only recommend it with reservation because it is inflammatory. The Old Calendar Church of Greece by the Cyprianite Synod is a more fair history in my opinion. I am using both books in my Old Calendarist Chart I am working on for this website.

As one who struggles with basic fundamental questions like "Does God care" or "Does he exist" this whole thing as to who in Orthodoxy has grace or no grace because they commune heretics, etc. is downright despairing and confusing. It makes finding the way to salvation into a cruel rat race.

Amen.

And that is just what the Evil One likes about it.

When I read about all this stuff I just fall back on Jesus and say the Jesus Prayer.

He is all that matters.

Logged

The first condition of salvation is to keep the norm of the true faith and in no way to deviate from the established doctrine of the Fathers.- Pope St. Hormisdas

Step back a moment and listen to yourself, man! Can you imagine Saint Maximos saying "well there's all these silly christological disputes... but I just sit back and pray... these discussions aren't that important anyway"? Can you imagine any saint saying such things? If the lives of saints are "applied dogmatics," we stand condemned: every one of us. Its so very nice for us, isn't it? People were tied in sacks and thrown into the sea and drowned because they would not accept certain beliefs or practices... today we all (me included) mock them by our shallowness, and the light way we approach Christianity. But we can go say the Jesus prayer 10 minutes and then we'll fill like we're doing the right thing. Egads. This is a struggle of life and death. Do you not understand what I am saying? But perhaps I do not understand myself yet! "I belong to Christ's jurisdiction" can only be an answer to a certain extent; many who give such an answer on judgment day may hear Christ say "I do not know you". This is what I fear. For you. For me. For Mor Ephrem. For Anastasios. For Seraphim. For Mary-Cecilia.

I told Nik tonight that I was going to try and cut down posting here. As I said, I no doubt only support the notion many people have in their head, that ROCORites (the online ones anyway) are ignorant, obnoxious fools, who are divisive and sectarian. Well I am probably all those things, so in my case I guess I was wrong for having said it was a caricature since it is reality. If I'm going to be damned, though, it will be for sincerely seeking truth and obnoxiously saying things to others in that pursuit. If I'm going to be condemned for ignorance, I refuse to let it be because I wouldn't seek out answers (being contented saying my prayer rule). If I am to be condemned for being divisive, I will at least make sure that it is because I understood wrong, and not because apathy was the source of divisivness. Saint Justin Popovich said that those who are really hateful are the ones who preach a false love and seek false union; if I do not hate sin enough to be saved, at least I will make an effort of faith and stand by my hate fopr false love and false unions. If I am sectarian, if I am condemned for that, it will be because I am ingorant, not because I do not want to have communion with others.

I have every wordly reason (God father, Priest friends, Deacon friends, closeness of parishes, friendships, etc.) to say that world Orthodoxy is just fine, that there's nothing wrong. It will cause immense sorrow--for both my wife and I--if I take a position opposite that. Yet I find myself daily finding that I can't take any position except one contrary to world Orthodoxy. And then people wish to leave ROCOR... for what? For the world.

« Last Edit: August 17, 2003, 01:23:14 AM by Paradosis »

Logged

"The bed is too short to stretch out on, the blanket too narrow to wrap around you." (Isa. 28:20)

Hard for me to get stirred up by arguments over the calendar, I guess.

A perfect example of how most people in world Orthodoxy want to deal with the issues As though communing monophysites, accepting the baptism and sacraments of heterodox (Catholics and Anglicans), etc. isn't enough to open your eyes. But you can always make a snide comment about the calendar or pews and dismiss things out of hand. Think hard on your words Linus, you will be judged by them.

Logged

"The bed is too short to stretch out on, the blanket too narrow to wrap around you." (Isa. 28:20)

I probably did not make myself clear in previous posts. I do not think that JUST BECAUSE one is schismatic that they are ipso facto graceless: I believe that the Kievan Patriarchate has grace (although I think it is sad they elected Pat. Filaret as their third patriarch when he was already deposed).

I do not think that any of the Old Calendar Greek Churches EXCEPT HOCNA are graceless.

I believe HOCNA and ROCiE to be graceless because of the evil way they separated from their hierarchs--not merely because they are out of communion with other Orthodox Churches.

On what basis are you making these distinctions? Btw., I'm still interested in hearing your opinion of the RCC, Nestorians, Non-Chalcedonians, etc.

Step back a moment and listen to yourself, man! Can you imagine Saint Maximos saying "well there's all these silly christological disputes... but I just sit back and pray... these discussions aren't that important anyway"? Can you imagine any saint saying such things?

Well, I can think of saints who do say such things. 'Course, they're western saints so they don't count for you, but.......

Quote

I have every wordly reason (God father, Priest friends, Deacon friends, closeness of parishes, friendships, etc.) to say that world Orthodoxy is just fine, that there's nothing wrong.

And you also have plenty of worldly reasons to say that your little corner of Orthodoxy is just fine, and that every place that is any little bit different is not. Stubbornness isn't in itself a virtue; if doctrine is that critical, then plenty of people were thrown into the sea to their damnation. Truth has no monopoly on dogged dedication to its principles.

Sorry, I drove 14 hours yesterday to NC and now I am on vacation. I would say schism would be departing from one's lawful hierarch for any reason other than heresy, or breaking communion with ALL Orthodox Churches for some reason other than heresy. ROCOR departed from the MP due to 1) exile and 2) due to the bad way Pat. Tikhon was being held and forced to issue contradictory ukaze"s", and broke with the GOA over perceived heresy so I would say hence they are not schismatics.

anastasios

anastasios,

What about the rest of the Orthodox World? There is more to Orthodoxy than the MP, GOA, JP and Serbia isn't there?

TonyS

Logged

Tómame como al tequila, de un golpe y sin pensarlo. - Ricardo Arjona

I'd be a fool to surrender when I know I can be a contender and if everbody's a sinner then everybody can be a winner ...I'll see you when yo

And, as you well know, hierarchs of the Serbian Patriarchate regularly serve with those of the ROCOR! And here we have Serbian Patriarch PAVLE personally serving with the Primates of both the MP and the OCA. Ironic, no?

Dear Hypo-Ortho,

This is curious news to me. I asked a school mate of mine if he knows for certain that the Serbian Patriarchate is in communion with ROCOR. He said that is what he heard but made the qualification "you will not see any bishops concelebrate." Of course he can be wrong, but I tend to think that since he is in the Serbian Church he is more informed of those things than those of us without.

Can you offer any links or other sort of substantiation?

Tony

I wrote an email letter to the Western Serbian Diocese of the US and asked their chancellor if they are in communion with ROCOR and they said, "yes."

Hypo-Ortho

From what I've been reading concerning ROCOR and Serbian relations in another forum, Tony, it depends upon whom you ask. Officially, the ROCOR Synod of Bishops states that the ROCOR is in communion with the Serbians. But it would seem that individual ROCOR bishops depart from the policy of their Synod and do their own thing concerning the Serbians, sometimes allowing concelebration, sometimes not, even within the same ROCOR Diocese of San Francisco and the West. IOW, individual ROCOR bishops are inconsistent in following their own jurisdictions's official policy. I cannot recall specific incidents where ROCOR hierarchs concelebrated with Serbian hierarchs *recently*, but they still allow their clergy to do so in most instances. The ROCOR's Archbishop +MARK of Berlin and West Germany, as I recall though, has definitely concelebrated with hierarchs of the Serbian Patriarchate.

On what basis are you making these distinctions? Btw., I'm still interested in hearing your opinion of the RCC, Nestorians, Non-Chalcedonians, etc.

Seraphim

First of all, I believe we have to look at Orthodox groups differently than Non-Orthodox groups. The reason for this is that Orthodox/Non-Orthodox splits go back a lot farther and their context is different theological controversies, different ecclesiastical structures, political situations, linguistic and cultural situations--whereas the modern Orthodox splits have less of these factors (although for instance the Russian splits mostly have to do with the legacy of communism).

I don't have any pre-set criteria; I believe we have to look at each group seperately and assess them by a number of factors. Hence for the Orthodox I would consider the following:

1) Do they maintain the Orthodox faith in its entirety?

2) Did they break off from their mother Church or were they isolated due to some other reason?

3) Do they maintain communion with any other Orthodox Churches?

4) During and after the split, what types of canonical infractions were committed by the Church (i.e. in the case of the Matthewites, we must consider their one-bishop consecrations, and in the case of the Acacians, we must consider that their bishops were ordained by two bishops of ROCOR in secret, one bishop being a New Calendarist Romananian ROCOR bishop).

5) Practically speaking, does the group behave like a Church or more like a secretive cult? (example of the later: the Pangratios church).

etc etc etc.

Even though I think that the ROCiE and HOCNA probably are not Orthodox Churches and even though I doubt what they are doing constitutes God's work and thus consititutes "grace" I also recognize that this is my opinion. Basically, there is a cleavage in Orthodox thought at the moment:

1) According to the strictest patristic teaching, there is only ONE Orthodox Church. You can't have "two" not-in-union Churches.

2) As I pointed out in my essay on Non-Chalcedonians in the other forum, historically speaking the Church has LIVED situations where there are "two" bodies that are both the Church that later reconciled.

---all of which leads us to a not-so-easy answer; one that must be weighed individually and in each case.

Now since you asked my opinions of several different groups I will give them. It is my understanding that the Orthodox Church does not dogmatize on non-Orthodox sacraments but allows a range of opinions (c.f. Eustratios Argenti by Timothy (Kallistos) Ware for an example of Orthodox-Roman Catholic interaction, then rivalry, on the Greek islands). Here are my OPINIONS:

1) Roman Catholics: seriously in error. Error is not defined in my terminology as just post-Vatican II; I disagree with the way the RC Church has developed since the split. However, in my years as a Catholic, I have read about and experienced too many miracles, divine grace, etc. in this body for it to be an "empty, graceless, worthless body". I believe that the partial truth I encountered in this body led me to Orthodoxy.

2) Non-Chalcedonians: I believe they have the Orthodox faith, but need to accept the extra 4 councils now that the Chalcedonians have explained their terminology to the Non-Chals. and vice-versa. Then union could be achieved.

3) Nestorians: I believe they have grace BUT they are a very marginal group. They recently renounced any Nestorianism in 1994 with a joint declaration with Pope John Paul II but they still need to clarify their belief re: Mary the Theotokos. Read their documents at www.cired.org to see what I believe is a sincere but still confused attempt to reconcile their Church with mainstream "apostolic" Chrisitianity. One of their bishop says they are weighing accepting Ephesus as a basis for Church union, so we shall see...

Again, my opinons only. I am interested to hear yours. Please also feel free to point out any logical errors in my posts.

As far as bad actions, the JP does the same thing to the Antiochians. Metro. Philip disallowed concelebration this year between Antiochians and the JP in the USA. I do not believe that makes any of them schismatic--because they are still in union with other Orthodox Churches. And Metro. Philip never calls the JP faithful schismatic to my knowledge (correct me if I am wrong).anastasios

anastasios,

A good point but I think it is not a good comparison all-in-all. This is a local issue (and correct me if I am wrong) but the JP is still in communion with the Patriarchate of Antioch; even if concelebration is disallowed in the USA. What seems to be the most imortant is the connection of churches at the head, after all that is the true communion, that is where the commemoration of the other heads of churches takes places by the heads of the other churches.

Tony

Logged

Tómame como al tequila, de un golpe y sin pensarlo. - Ricardo Arjona

I'd be a fool to surrender when I know I can be a contender and if everbody's a sinner then everybody can be a winner ...I'll see you when yo

Just as part of the argument, do you believe the OCA was schismatic prior to 1971?

anastasios

anastasios,

In talking to someone else about this something interesting was mentioned.

A difference between the "Metropolia" in the USA together with Evlogii in Europe and the ROCOR Synod is that both the Metropolia and Evlogii had real dioceses that remained intact. In other words there were local churches under those administrations their lives just continued, inasmuch as possible given the circumstances, uninterrupted.

On the other hand, the ROCOR Synod formed in Serbia and proceeded to set up parishes and administrations where, in most if not all cases, they already existed. It was merely not the life of the church continuing so much as it was the establishment of a new administration.

I am not as well-informed about the history of the ROCOR Synod as I would like to be but I would like to ask, did ROCOR not seek communion with the EP and, for instance, Antioch, etc immediately? If not, why not?

(Evlogii, for those who don't know, switched his jurisdiction from MP to EP.)

If ROCOR is not schismatic (as in your understanding) then what is it?

TonyS

Logged

Tómame como al tequila, de un golpe y sin pensarlo. - Ricardo Arjona

I'd be a fool to surrender when I know I can be a contender and if everbody's a sinner then everybody can be a winner ...I'll see you when yo

ROCOR was in communion with most of "world Orthodoxy" at some point or another. A president who I'll leave unnamed once said "I didn't leave the Democratic party, the Democratic party left me". ROCOR could say the same thing about most of the Orthodox bodies and their orthodoxy.

Logged

"The bed is too short to stretch out on, the blanket too narrow to wrap around you." (Isa. 28:20)

"If God were suddenly condemned to live the life which he has inflicted on men, he would kill himself- Alexander Dumas"

Um, God did live as a human being, and he died for you. He came and showed the greatest amount of humility and condescension that could ever be possible, just so sinful Justin and Sinjin could have a chance at getting their lives together. He died so you wouldn't have to do foolish things like kill yourself in despair.

Logged

"The bed is too short to stretch out on, the blanket too narrow to wrap around you." (Isa. 28:20)

Hypo-Ortho

Most of the references to concelebration are untrue, at least as regards Eucharistic concelebration (I'm not sure about the reference to concelebration in the case of Pope John Paul II and Patriarch Teoctist of Romania, however: in the photo provided, both are vested in the Eucharistic vestments of their respective confessions, so more precise information is needed as to what was going on).

Joint prayer, however, yes, I'm afraid that part is true. And we seem to see more and more of that. Some parishioners at my rather conservative and traditionalist OCA church are very upset by what they see as increasing movements toward unity on the part of the Vatican and Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew as well as by the local Greek Orthodox Diocese of Boston (GOA) and the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Boston, especially in the issuance of "Joint" Pastoral Letters read in the churches of both dioceses on certain occasions (notably signed by Greek +Metropolitan METHODIOS and the now resigned and ill-famed Cardinal Bernard Law).

Most of the references to concelebration are untrue, at least as regards Eucharistic concelebration (I'm not sure about the reference to concelebration in the case of Pope John Paul II and Patriarch Teoctist of Romania, however: in the photo provided, both are vested in the Eucharistic vestments of their respective confessions, so more precise information is needed as to what was going on).

Hypo-Ortho

Hypo,I, too, do not know fully about the 1999 "concelebration"; however, the recent 'concelebration' in Rome with Pope JPII and Patriarch Teoctist was not a FULL celebration. The Pope did recite the Creed without the Filioque, but the Patriarch pointedly refused to participate in the Consecration - reportedly for doctrinal reasons. Splitting ecumenical hairs? Perhaps, but I for one would not support anything further, if this even.Demetri

Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides

Demetri has the right idea re: concelebrations. The concelebrations, if they can be called that, are concelebrations of the first part of the Liturgy, the Liturgy of the Word (I am speaking here of instances where certain Orthodox prelates have "concelebrated" with the Pope in a Roman Mass...I am unaware of instances of this happening in the context of an Orthodox Liturgy). After this, there is no "concelebration". I am of the opinion that this is highly inappropriate and probably scandalous, although it could be worse.

As for Hypo's observation that in one of the pictures, the Pope and a Patriarch are wearing vestments they would wear in order to celebrate the Eucharist, I think this is inaccurate. I saw that picture, and, if I'm not mistaken, the Pope is not wearing a chasuble, but a cope, which would only be worn during a Mass if NOT (con)celebrating.

As for Hypo's observation that in one of the pictures, the Pope and a Patriarch are wearing vestments they would wear in order to celebrate the Eucharist, I think this is inaccurate. I saw that picture, and, if I'm not mistaken, the Pope is not wearing a chasuble, but a cope, which would only be worn during a Mass if NOT (con)celebrating.

One wears a miter and can wear a cope during certain parts of the eucharist but would take off the miter and cope (and possibly don a chasuble) before the Sursum Corda. I'm guessing that this picture was taken at the very beginning of the service(s).

I commented on the page elsewhere in the forum but I think some comments need elaboration here. This isn't really about doctrine; it's about a sort of ritual purity. The reality, in this century, is that the various Christian sects and denominations need each other and are not the separable things that a cranky Orthodoxy wants to make of them. We haven't been in the nice tidy Byzantine Empire where everyone is a Christian, not for a thousand years. Those outside of Christianity do not necessarily see even rather coarse distinctions among us, much less the kind of separation that ROAC is pushing. For instance, the Roman Catholics and the Anglicans observe the Martyrs of Nagasaki on the same date because the Martyrs were a mixed group of Catholics and Anglicans. The Japanese didn't care about their denominations or who the True Church was.

ROAC may be orthodox on the inside, but its central principle, judging from the website, is separation, and thus schism.

If ROCOR is not schismatic (as in your understanding) then what is it?

Do you think demands from Moscow that the Churches of the Russian diaspora swear fealty to the Soviet government, and join with the MP in considering the "joys and sorrows" of the communist bosses to be those of the Russian Orthodox faithful to be reasonable requests? Quite frankly, they may as well have asked the Russian Orthodox faithful to offer a pinch of incence at Lenin's feet.

Separation according to the Fathers is not only excusable, but in fact commendable when a faction has formed (irregardless of size or worldly prestige) that has betrayed the Church of Christ. If ROCOR's reasons for cutting off communication with the MP was not justifiable (the same can be asked of the Catacomb Church as well), then what exactly were the provisions envisioned by the Fathers meant to address? IOW, just how bad does it have to get? Censing copies of the "Communist Manifesto" during the Divine Liturgy?

Most of the references to concelebration are untrue, at least as regards Eucharistic concelebration (I'm not sure about the reference to concelebration in the case of Pope John Paul II and Patriarch Teoctist of Romania, however: in the photo provided, both are vested in the Eucharistic vestments of their respective confessions, so more precise information is needed as to what was going on).

This is a doctrinaire difference which makes no difference at all, since joint celebration of liturgical services is not limited to "the liturgy of the eucharist" - this is the error of understanding the Church's "liturgy" to mean only the Eucharistic Sacrifice, which is incorrect. All public acts of worship, from the rites surrounding Baptism and Marriage, public offices like the various liturgical hours, to the various rites involved in the celebration of the Eucharist, are all "liturgy", and thus the ecumenists have most certainly co-liturgized with Roman Catholics and Monphysites - not to mention that many cases of outright concelebration of the Holy Sacrifice in the Altar have occured without any kind of censor (like in the U.S. with "Orthodox" clergy concelebrating entire liturgies with Byzantine Catholics.)

Quote

Joint prayer, however, yes, I'm afraid that part is true. And we seem to see more and more of that. Some parishioners at my rather conservative and traditionalist OCA church are very upset by what they see as increasing movements toward unity on the part of the Vatican and Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew as well as by the local Greek Orthodox Diocese of Boston (GOA) and the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Boston, especially in the issuance of "Joint" Pastoral Letters read in the churches of both dioceses on certain occasions (notably signed by Greek +Metropolitan METHODIOS and the now resigned and ill-famed Cardinal Bernard Law).

You concede this...but what of it? Doesn't what you've just written here vindicate the "fanatics" (not that you've called them such, but many others do.)

Hypo-Ortho

SeraphimReeves<<You concede this...but what of it? Doesn't what you've just written here vindicate the "fanatics" (not that you've called them such, but many others do.)>>

In the face of the blatant "concelebrations" contrary to all the Holy Canons (and given the excellent and precise definition of "concelebration" that you give above, Sepaphim), the ones you refer to as "fanatics" are indeed vindicated, IMHO. I too am personally aware of illicit "concelebrations" between Byzantine Catholic and Orthodox clergy, btw. Thank God we now have a traditionalist priest in my OCA parish--the previous one had already adopted some BC liturgical practices in lieu of Orthodox ones!

I commented on the page elsewhere in the forum but I think some comments need elaboration here. This isn't really about doctrine; it's about a sort of ritual purity. The reality, in this century, is that the various Christian sects and denominations need each other and are not the separable things that a cranky Orthodoxy wants to make of them.

While I don't expect a branch-theorist to sympathize with Orthodox ecclessiological teachings, you could at least not persist in misrepresenting them.

This is not about a pharisaical party line, or delusional desire for the "good old days". The Orthodox confessors of these latter days simply hold to the consistant position that....

- God is truth, thus His grace and truth go hand in hand.

- The Church is the body of Christ the God-Man, and as such is one.

- This one Church, cannot obviously be of two minds.

- When the Church prays in the Name of Christ (liturgy), She is praying as His members. Thus, the inappropriatness of the members of Christ joining with non-members - particularly the crime against charity which occurs, since such acts heavily imply (and often state outright) that these persons are in fact members of Christ, which from an Orthodox position, they are not.

If you have problems with this consistant, reasonable "exclusivity" of the Catholic Church of our Lord, then fight not the "schismatic" (rich, coming from an Anglican) Orthodox confessors of our day, but take the battle up with history, in particular the patrimony which in some respects still remains (perhaps as a dead letter, but it's still there) in your own tradition. Why did the early Christians forbid even catechumen from staying through the entire Divine Liturgy? Why were even certain doctrines not even explained thoroughly until the very last moments before they received Holy Baptism? Why the Apostolic Canons forbidding joint prayer, let alone co-liturgizing? All of these ancient aspects of Christian praxis indicate a basic assumption about the Church of Christ, and Her exclusivity - welcoming all to Her ("Catholic" as in "the Church for everyone"), but clearly understanding Herself to be at the same time separate (which is the underlying idea behind the word "holiness" - separated apart from what is common and brought near unto God.)

Quote

We haven't been in the nice tidy Byzantine Empire where everyone is a Christian, not for a thousand years.

Exactly, which means that in a certain respect the more "open" practice of Orthodox rites and doctrinal explination may itself be what is a bit "out of time", since such an openess was due to the Christianization of Romania, and the latter existance of the Church in lands which had by in large (and even officially) converted to the true faith.

Thus, the spectacle of "Orthodox" heirarchs and clergy signing interconfessional statements and co-liturgizing with heretics (and even involving themselves in prayer services involving infidels and pagans) is even more out of place, given our times, not less so.

Quote

Those outside of Christianity do not necessarily see even rather coarse distinctions among us, much less the kind of separation that ROAC is pushing.

Those "outside" are indeed scandalized by the existance of schisms and heretical sects - but it is those who are separated from the Body of Christ and falsely act in His Name who are to blame for this sad situation. One can also speculate (though it changes little) about why providence has allowed for such a situation.

Quote

For instance, the Roman Catholics and the Anglicans observe the Martyrs of Nagasaki on the same date because the Martyrs were a mixed group of Catholics and Anglicans. The Japanese didn't care about their denominations or who the True Church was.

Ok....

Quote

ROAC may be orthodox on the inside, but its central principle, judging from the website, is separation, and thus schism.

Though you probably did not mean it this way, being "separate", yet (paradoxically perhaps) still being in the world ("in the world but not of it") is at the heart of authentic Christianity - dying while still walking, so as to be alive in Christ. The various practices of the early Church, and explicit canonical penalties imposed not only against heretics, but those who have communion with them, make it quite apparent that this sometimes uncomfortable "exclusiveness" is not new, the fantasy of puritanical fanatics.

What the "traditionalists" are doing is not, objectively (from a true, Orthodox paradigm at least) "fanatical" - rather it is the majority that is the problem, by becoming lukewarm and indifferent to questions of truth. In short, it's not the "fanatics" who have changed.

While I don't expect a branch-theorist to sympathize with Orthodox ecclessiological teachings, you could at least not persist in misrepresenting them.

I don't think you can accurately accuse me of misrepresentation simply because my analysis of the situation is not in line with yours. Since we seem to be persuing this argument on two separate threads, it seems unnecessary to repeat every last remark I make in the other line. However, it seems problematic at best for a separatist group to lay claim to "Orthodox ecclessiology", since the mainline Orthodox groups could just as well lay claim to it too. Who am I supposed to believe? I am left to my own resources to judge whose claim is more reasonable.

Quote

The Orthodox confessors of these latter days simply hold to the consistant position that....

- God is truth, thus His grace and truth go hand in hand.

- The Church is the body of Christ the God-Man, and as such is one.

- This one Church, cannot obviously be of two minds.

- When the Church prays in the Name of Christ (liturgy), She is praying as His members. Thus, the inappropriatness of the members of Christ joining with non-members - particularly the crime against charity which occurs, since such acts heavily imply (and often state outright) that these persons are in fact members of Christ, which from an Orthodox position, they are not.

Leaving aside my personal differences with some of these points, it is the very length of the last paragraph which betrays you. This is not a principle; it is a line of reasoning.

If "where the bishop is, there is the church", then is the mind of the bishop the Mind of the Church? It certainly cannot be, and as I understand it Orthodoxy would specifically deny that this is so. The mind of the church has to be expressed some other way, and I am given to understand that it is expressed in a consensus across the ages.

Acts cannot "state outright". Maybe they "imply", but since I'm feeling a bit cranky about this I going to stick to the assertion that they are, in this case, merely the subject of your inferences. What's worse is that you are treating this as if it were as serious as denying the Creed. But it isn't. It's not a point of theology, but of discipline. And it may well be the mind of the church that ecumenical acts are acceptable within certain limits, in this age.

Which brings us back to the schism problem. One would expect that such a dispute would be settled the old-fashioned Orthodox way: get the bishops together and let them work it out. Instead a few bishops have passed judgement on the rest; the mind of these bishops have become the mind of the church, in their eyes. They have refused the discipline of having to convince the rest of the church.

Quote

If you have problems with this consistant, reasonable "exclusivity" of the Catholic Church of our Lord, then fight not the "schismatic" (rich, coming from an Anglican) Orthodox confessors of our day(...)

If I am going to look at "Orthodox confessors", I am going to look at all of Orthodoxy. That would be the Anglican way to do it.

Quote

(...) but take the battle up with history, in particular the patrimony which in some respects still remains (perhaps as a dead letter, but it's still there) in your own tradition. Why did the early Christians forbid even catechumen from staying through the entire Divine Liturgy? Why were even certain doctrines not even explained thoroughly until the very last moments before they received Holy Baptism?

Since these are dead issues, what does it matter? Actually, I'll take it a step further. Again, these are discipline issues, and since the practice has changed, the implication is right there that discipline is subject to such change. So the fact that these practices are no longer carried out is evidence against your thesis.

Well, that's not precisely what they say, never mind that they are a disputed document anyway. They do not precisely cover the modern situation of division. This is an important point because they are plainly written to the situation of a post-Nicene but definitely Byzantine church, a church which enjoys the aegis of the state and which is still hurting from the Arian and Christological controversies (and maybe even iconoclasm).

The point is that these prohibitions don't arise out of nowhere, and they aren't first principles. They are laws written to the situation, and at the time thought to be of general application. Depicting them as timeless rules is exactly the kind of juridical thinking that the West is oft accused of!

That's precisely why I assert that some attempt at council has to be made.

Quote

Thus, the spectacle of "Orthodox" heirarchs and clergy signing interconfessional statements and co-liturgizing with heretics (and even involving themselves in prayer services involving infidels and pagans) is even more out of place, given our times, not less so.

And now we're even a step further away. This isn't the mind of the church. This is your mind. If the counsel of the whole church is required, then of what use is an argument from you? There's no possible way for you to find this argument in the fathers, after all, precisely because they are pre-modern. If it is invalid for me to argue with bishops, it is ever so more invalid for you.

Quote

Quote

Those outside of Christianity do not necessarily see even rather coarse distinctions among us, much less the kind of separation that ROAC is pushing.

Those "outside" are indeed scandalized by the existance of schisms and heretical sects - but it is those who are separated from the Body of Christ and falsely act in His Name who are to blame for this sad situation.

OK, now you've set Jesus against you. I can quote chapter and verse from Jesus himself about those using his name "falsely", and it isn't going to support this statement. Nobody should ever be declaring his side to be without sin.

Quote

Quote

For instance, the Roman Catholics and the Anglicans observe the Martyrs of Nagasaki on the same date because the Martyrs were a mixed group of Catholics and Anglicans. The Japanese didn't care about their denominations or who the True Church was.

Ok....

My wife has pointed out to me that I have the wrong martyrs-- I should have referred to the Martyrs of Uganda.

If ROCOR is not schismatic (as in your understanding) then what is it?

Do you think demands from Moscow that the Churches of the Russian diaspora swear fealty to the Soviet government, and join with the MP in considering the "joys and sorrows" of the communist bosses to be those of the Russian Orthodox faithful to be reasonable requests? Quite frankly, they may as well have asked the Russian Orthodox faithful to offer a pinch of incence at Lenin's feet.

Separation according to the Fathers is not only excusable, but in fact commendable when a faction has formed (irregardless of size or worldly prestige) that has betrayed the Church of Christ. If ROCOR's reasons for cutting off communication with the MP was not justifiable (the same can be asked of the Catacomb Church as well), then what exactly were the provisions envisioned by the Fathers meant to address? IOW, just how bad does it have to get? Censing copies of the "Communist Manifesto" during the Divine Liturgy?

Seraphim

"The Metropolia" and EVLOGII separated, I am not questioning that. The separation from the Communist State is not the point. What about the rest of the Orthodox world?

Logged

Tómame como al tequila, de un golpe y sin pensarlo. - Ricardo Arjona

I'd be a fool to surrender when I know I can be a contender and if everbody's a sinner then everybody can be a winner ...I'll see you when yo

I don't think you can accurately accuse me of misrepresentation simply because my analysis of the situation is not in line with yours. Since we seem to be persuing this argument on two separate threads, it seems unnecessary to repeat every last remark I make in the other line. However, it seems problematic at best for a separatist group to lay claim to "Orthodox ecclessiology", since the mainline Orthodox groups could just as well lay claim to it too. Who am I supposed to believe? I am left to my own resources to judge whose claim is more reasonable.

On that much, I can agree with you - two parties claiming to be "Orthodox" making contradictory claims. That is a scandal. It is, sadly, nothing new - just as scandalous (if not more so) is the sight of various radically differing parties all claiming to be "Orthodox" in their own divergent ways (various Protestant denominations, Roman Catholicism, Non-Chalcedonians, Mormons, etc.) And of course, beyond this, the scandal of darkened mankind filled with even more radically divergent sects (Islam in it's various flavours, Judaism, Buddhism, etc.)

Not a new problem sadly, but perhaps more of a problem than ever before. I suppose this brings up the whole question of "knowing" which has been at the crux of the western philosophical tradition for millenia. And to that, I have no glib answers, save the conviction that God is the knower of men's hearts, and as St.Philaret pointed out, that the only sin which the Scriptures teach puts a man totally beyond the pale of redemption and into the hands of perdition is the "sin against the Holy Spirit." (St.Philaret, btw, was the reigning heirarch of ROCOR when it issued it's anathema against ecumenism.)

Quote

Leaving aside my personal differences with some of these points, it is the very length of the last paragraph which betrays you. This is not a principle; it is a line of reasoning.

Fair enough - a line of reasoning founded upon an underlying principle, which I obviously did not explain as simply and economically as I should have.

St.Paul states this principle much better (and simply) than I ever could...

14 Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?15 And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel?16 And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.17 Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you,18 And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty. (2nd Corinthians 6:14-18)

Quote

If "where the bishop is, there is the church", then is the mind of the bishop the Mind of the Church? It certainly cannot be, and as I understand it Orthodoxy would specifically deny that this is so. The mind of the church has to be expressed some other way, and I am given to understand that it is expressed in a consensus across the ages.

Precisely - across the ages; the democracy of the Saints, and not the oligharchy of the living over the Saints of all ages (to borrow a sentiment from Chesterton regarding the value of tradition in all social institutions, including religion.)

It is precisely on this basis that the ecumenists are condemned. There is no patristic or canonical argument for their antics.

Quote

What's worse is that you are treating this as if it were as serious as denying the Creed. But it isn't. It's not a point of theology, but of discipline. And it may well be the mind of the church that ecumenical acts are acceptable within certain limits, in this age.

a) even if it were simply a matter of "discipline", the canons which are being violated are still in force as far as the Orthodox Church is concerned.

b) more importantly, this is a point of theology, since the canons in this situation are addressing an ecclessiological issue (which, the last time I checked, was an aspect of theology) - the issue being the identity of the Church of Christ, and the inseperable relationship between Orthodox doctrine and "Churchness". Recognition of heretical rites is tantamount to a recognition of the groups which perform them. From an Orthodox ecclessiological p.o.v. this is the only conclusion one can arrive at, since Orthodoxy rejects the idea that the sacraments are magical rites that can be properly "performed" by those who are not in fact members of Christ. The sacraments are salvific, precisely because they are acts of Christ (done in and by His body, the Church.) For example, while in emergencies the Church recognizes that a layman can baptize someone, (unlike Catholicism, for example) She does not believe someone who is not Orthodox, who is not a member of Christ, can baptize.

This is why the canons prohibiting joint prayers with heretics or recognition of their sacraments exist at all - they're the practical outgrowth of ecclessiological doctrine, not just some clannish attempt at being exclusive for it's own sake.

Quote

Which brings us back to the schism problem. One would expect that such a dispute would be settled the old-fashioned Orthodox way: get the bishops together and let them work it out.

You're labouring under the false idea that this has not been tried.

Quote

Instead a few bishops have passed judgement on the rest; the mind of these bishops have become the mind of the church, in their eyes. They have refused the discipline of having to convince the rest of the church.

15 Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother.16 But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.17 And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican. (St.Matthew 16:15-17)

Sadly, not only individual layman, but Bishops (even those with arch-episcopal titles like "Metropolitan" or "Patriarch") have put themselves in a position to be admonished by their non-erring brethren - and sadly in our modern context, have refused their admonition.

The current crisis is of course not without historical precident - I don't think anyone here would doubt that it was the resisting Bishops and faithful who refused to be in communion with the official "Arian" churches who were in the wrong. In the long run, this situation too will have to be worked out on a "large" scale. For the time being however, it is not simply excusable, but necessary to refuse fellowship with those who have either imbibed heresy, or who attempt to legitimize it by remaining in communion with it.

Quote

If I am going to look at "Orthodox confessors", I am going to look at all of Orthodoxy. That would be the Anglican way to do it.

In which case, you'll have to look to the Fathers and Saints - not simply those posing as confessors in our day, but those of past ages. Catholicity is not determined by majority vote in the moment, but consensus from Pentecost onward. It is on this basis that the modern Orthodox confessors take the position that they do, not some sort of willy nilly phariseeism or sectarianism (which is how their stand is typically characterized.)

Quote

Since these are dead issues, what does it matter? Actually, I'll take it a step further. Again, these are discipline issues, and since the practice has changed, the implication is right there that discipline is subject to such change. So the fact that these practices are no longer carried out is evidence against your thesis.

You seem to have misunderstood me. They're a dead letter in your confession, though I'm sure Anglican scholars are well aware of them.

As for your conclusions here, I'm at a loss for words. If you cannot see what the basis was for these older practices (and why they changed as they did), I have nothing else to say to you on that matter.

Quote

Well, that's not precisely what they say, never mind that they are a disputed document anyway.

Not as far as Orthodoxy is concerned, which is what is important here. My issue here is not with Anglicans or Roman Catholics doing what they do, but those who identify themselves as being "Orthodox" and inheritors of the Church's holy patrimony doing things like this.

Quote

do not precisely cover the modern situation of division.

That is so often said, but rarely justified. They precisely cover our situation, since specific heresies are not identified, but the notion of heretical sects in general - and as far as Orthodoxy is concerned, the heterodox subscribe to heresies.

Quote

This is an important point because they are plainly written to the situation of a post-Nicene but definitely Byzantine church, a church which enjoys the aegis of the state and which is still hurting from the Arian and Christological controversies (and maybe even iconoclasm).

Is this the best you can do? Try and divine the motives of overly-emotional Byzantines? How about they say what they say, and taking them on that level is the obvious way of receiving them?

Quote

The point is that these prohibitions don't arise out of nowhere, and they aren't first principles.

I agree, they did not arise from nowhere, and in fact have been the policy of the Church since the Apostolic period (thus "Apostolic Canons"). This is precisely what I've been trying to point out to you, particularly in this post - they are the practical expression of Orthodox ecclessiological doctrine.

Quote

They are laws written to the situation, and at the time thought to be of general application. Depicting them as timeless rules is exactly the kind of juridical thinking that the West is oft accused of!

I've rarely seen the west accused by anyone of being doggedly attached to "forms" of praxis (since it is typically western heterodox apologists who fault Orthodoxy for being so attached to outward expressions of ecclessiastical tradition), but perhaps that's because I don't get out much.

Some canons exist as matters of common sense and are context appropriate. However others (such as those dealing with heresy, or that have an intimate relationship with doctrinal matters) are not reformable. In this case, there is a disciplinary element and a dogmatic element - they're intertwined. The canons regarding interconfessional prayer and co-liturgizing (as well as the recognition of heretical sacraments) exist, because of dogmatic convictions about the Church. Besides, the canons themselves are still in effect (afa Orthodoxy is concerned.) The new calendarists themselves do not even pretend to argue they're not in effect - they simply ignore them, or argue around them (but never have I heard even them argue that they're somehow "not in effect.")

Quote

OK, now you've set Jesus against you. I can quote chapter and verse from Jesus himself about those using his name "falsely", and it isn't going to support this statement. Nobody should ever be declaring his side to be without sin.

a) Nobody said anything about anyone being "without sin."

b) You could only quote "chapter and verse" by bastardizing it's meaning. Do you think Christ's care for those who sincerely labour outside of the Church extends to the sacreligious use of His Name, or to a justification of error (which elsewhere the Scriptures attribute to the devil)? Or do you believe that at least implicit to Christ's correction of the Apostles on this matter, was the notion of "innocently ignorant" men (who are favourably disposed to the Lord) was the notion that they should end up in the communion of the Church? Surely He didn't mean that their invocation of His Name was an end in itself, do you, or a pardoning of the demonic evil of heresy and schism?

"The Metropolia" and EVLOGII separated, I am not questioning that. The separation from the Communist State is not the point. What about the rest of the Orthodox world?

One could ask of course why "world Orthodoxy" threw it's lot in with the Sergianists, and not the Russian diaspora (and the suffering Catacomb Church!)? As many have rightly pointed out, it was not ROCOR which moved away from "world Orthodoxy" (whether this be understood in terms of fraternal relations/communion, or in terms of doctrine), but "world Orthodoxy" that abandoned ROCOR (whether because of their recognition of the Sergianist MP, or it's pursuit of various canonical and ecclessiological errors.)

St.Paul states this principle much better (and simply) than I ever could...

14 Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?15 And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel?

If you would call us "unbelievers" and "infidels", then you speak falsely.

Quote

Quote

If "where the bishop is, there is the church", then is the mind of the bishop the Mind of the Church? It certainly cannot be, and as I understand it Orthodoxy would specifically deny that this is so. The mind of the church has to be expressed some other way, and I am given to understand that it is expressed in a consensus across the ages.

Precisely - across the ages; the democracy of the Saints, and not the oligharchy of the living over the Saints of all ages (to borrow a sentiment from Chesterton regarding the value of tradition in all social institutions, including religion.)

It is precisely on this basis that the ecumenists are condemned. There is no patristic or canonical argument for their antics.

But now you aren't aren't referring to a democracy, but a tyranny. Chesterton's "democracy" remark is quintessentially Anglican, and the point of such a democracy is that neither the past nor the present should hold a dictatorship over the other.

Quote

Quote

What's worse is that you are treating this as if it were as serious as denying the Creed. But it isn't. It's not a point of theology, but of discipline. And it may well be the mind of the church that ecumenical acts are acceptable within certain limits, in this age.

a) even if it were simply a matter of "discipline", the canons which are being violated are still in force as far as the Orthodox Church is concerned.

b) more importantly, this is a point of theology, since the canons in this situation are addressing an ecclessiological issue (which, the last time I checked, was an aspect of theology) - the issue being the identity of the Church of Christ, and the inseperable relationship between Orthodox doctrine and "Churchness".

That's why it isn't a theological issue. The issue isn't the identity of the church; that can be taken as a given, acknowledging that other Christians hold to different theories. The issue with "ecumenism" is how the Orthodox doctrine of that identity should be realized in the conduct of its clergy and laity, with relationship to these other bodies.

This is a practice issue, and discipline issue-- not a theological issue. One can hold to the same doctrine about the Church and come to different conclusions about how one deals with the other Christian bodies.

Quote

This is why the canons prohibiting joint prayers with heretics or recognition of their sacraments exist at all - they're the practical outgrowth of ecclessiological doctrine, not just some clannish attempt at being exclusive for it's own sake.

Ah, but those are two separate issues. The matter of the sacraments is not the same as the matter of prayers. The first is an obvious consequence of the ecclesiology, but to equate the second to the first is to run afoul even of scripture. The church cannot invalidate prayer; only God can. Therefore the reason for not praying with heretics cannot be the same as that for not recognizing their sacraments.

The real reason, as you admitted earlier, is the matter of appearing to give sanction to heretics. But this is not the same issue that it was in 450 AD. Indeed, the shoe is now on the other foot. You keep making references that liken Baptists to Buddhists, but the world can see that this is a false taxonomy. So now this sanction essentially puts you in the position of spreading slanderous claims about other Christian bodies.

Quote

Quote

Which brings us back to the schism problem. One would expect that such a dispute would be settled the old-fashioned Orthodox way: get the bishops together and let them work it out.

You're labouring under the false idea that this has not been tried.

I don't know about "false idea". It's very hard to get an accurate picture of what actually transpired because every source I can find is so blantantly biased. But the impression I get this that things happened, and that various groups of bishops stood off at a difference and condemned them. The one point that shines through al of this is that Orthodoxy was prepared to deal with a state that was indifferent to it, or a state that was intertwined with it (for good or ill), but that it was totally unprepared for a state that attempted to destroy it as an institution. If the Russian church had been entirely wiped out (at least as a visible institution), then the appearance of ROCOR in the USA would still have been a problem. The Arian situation is not a precedent; indeed, the biggest problem I see is that, demanding some precedent, the Arians are pressed into service as an analogy even though the situations are quite dissimilar.

Quote

I agree, they did not arise from nowhere, and in fact have been the policy of the Church since the Apostolic period (thus "Apostolic Canons").

Everyone realistically admits that the so-called Apostolic Canons are Post-Nicene. The East and the West cannot even agree as to how many there are!

Quote

Some canons exist as matters of common sense and are context appropriate. However others (such as those dealing with heresy, or that have an intimate relationship with doctrinal matters) are not reformable. In this case, there is a disciplinary element and a dogmatic element - they're intertwined.

That is your assertion, but the continuing problem in all of this is that you are trying to claim to speak the Mind of the Church in a situation in which the difficulty is that there is a dispute in Orthodoxy. It's plain to me that they are not intertwined. Moreover, plenty of Orthodoxy agrees with me and disagrees with you.

Quote

Quote

OK, now you've set Jesus against you. I can quote chapter and verse from Jesus himself about those using his name "falsely", and it isn't going to support this statement. Nobody should ever be declaring his side to be without sin.

a) Nobody said anything about anyone being "without sin."

I would say that you have.

Quote

b) You could only quote "chapter and verse" by bastardizing it's meaning. Do you think Christ's care for those who sincerely labour outside of the Church extends to the sacreligious use of His Name, or to a justification of error (which elsewhere the Scriptures attribute to the devil)?

But that's begging the question! Who gets to say what is sacrilege anyway-- you or God? I'm betting on God, not on you.

If you would call us "unbelievers" and "infidels", then you speak falsely.

Adherance to heresy is divine faith? What exactly is unbelief in your opinion? Arianism? Monphysitism? By logical extension, if heresy does not render one an "unbeliever", then no amount of error does - up to outright infidelity (Judaism, Islam, etc.)

Quote

But now you aren't aren't referring to a democracy, but a tyranny. Chesterton's "democracy" remark is quintessentially Anglican,

It could be argued that it is precisely because of his manner of thought that he ended up leaving the Anglican church...

Quote

and the point of such a democracy is that neither the past nor the present should hold a dictatorship over the other.

Here you introduce a very clever (and I hope unintentional) falsification of his thought - by falsely creating a parity/equality between "past" and "present." As far as Chesterton was concerned, alteration of traditions (whether social or religious) required an incredible amount of justification, including a true understanding of just why those traditions were instituted in the first place (and whether or not the situation creating them still exists.)

If we are to say Chesterton was correct in such an outlook, then your arguments thus far are undermined - you've repeatedly thrown out (as if it were self evident) that our modern situation is somehow totally different from that which motivated the Apostolic Canons...yet you've failed to justify this in the least.

Quote

That's why it isn't a theological issue. The issue isn't the identity of the church; that can be taken as a given, acknowledging that other Christians hold to different theories.

So you propose a divorce between doctrinal positions and praxis?

Besides, your whole objection thus far has been confusing. If you're objecting purely on the basis of a branch-theorist, Anglican ecclessiological perspective, that's fine. I disagree with you, but that should be no surprise. However, it seems you're trying to debate Orthodoxy with me - and if this is the case, then you cannot fault me for not holding to Anglican ideas about the Church.

Quote

The issue with "ecumenism" is how the Orthodox doctrine of that identity should be realized in the conduct of its clergy and laity, with relationship to these other bodies.

But what if the truth is that those other bodies are not real churches at all? Fraternal prayer in such a situation would then be an excercise of of falsehood, as would any conversation or "joint statement" giving the impression that these bodies are in fact members of Christ.

While you may disagree as an Anglican with that position (and that I would understand - disagree with, but understand), if you're going to insist on arguing from an Orthodox p.o.v. (arguing which is the "real Orthodoxy"), then you're going to have to demonstrate how such acts are possible when there are canons, and an underlying theological content, which forbid this.

An interesting aside - if you want evidence that what you're attempting to argue for is not an Orthodox position, just look to this forum itself; even the folks involved with "mainstream Orthodox" juristictions know full well that the activities of the EP and the various "Orthodox" ecumenists are wrong. The only thing that differentiates them from the "Russian sectarians" or whatever one wants to call them, is that they believe they can still maintain a relationship with such people (how they can rationalize this is up to them to explain.)

Quote

This is a practice issue, and discipline issue-- not a theological issue. One can hold to the same doctrine about the Church and come to different conclusions about how one deals with the other Christian bodies.

The divorce between praxis and belief you're proposing is simply not tenable. It would only be possible if Orthodoxy could admit the "branch-theory" ecclessiology; and simply put, it cannot. Joint prayer as far as Orthodoxy is concerned, is the activity of brothers, sharing the same faith, for it is the activity of Christ's body - this applies even more strongly to public, liturgical acts. There is an intimate link here (as I've explained several times now) between praxis and doctrine - the canons have a theological basis in this matter. Simply denying it, does not make it "not so."

Quote

Ah, but those are two separate issues. The matter of the sacraments is not the same as the matter of prayers.

Perhaps from a Latin minded perspective they're not, but even then I somehow doubt this. The Holy Mysteries are prayers - intercourse between the Bride of Christ and the Almighty. This is not a very obvious idea in post-schism Latin thought, since the sacraments were made into mechanistic acts whose validity has little to do with who is celebrating them.

In fact, it's precisely on this basis that the Church cannot recognize "valid" mysteries existing outside of the Church - as if God could be forced to descend upon an Altar, or the Holy Spirit can be compelled to give new birth through Baptismal waters! This sounds like "hocus pocus", not Christianity.

Quote

The first is an obvious consequence of the ecclesiology, but to equate the second to the first is to run afoul even of scripture. The church cannot invalidate prayer; only God can. Therefore the reason for not praying with heretics cannot be the same as that for not recognizing their sacraments.

You're making it very clear that you not only do not accept Orthodox teaching on the sacraments (which I can understand), but you do not even understand it.

Quote

The real reason, as you admitted earlier, is the matter of appearing to give sanction to heretics. But this is not the same issue that it was in 450 AD. Indeed, the shoe is now on the other foot. You keep making references that liken Baptists to Buddhists, but the world can see that this is a false taxonomy. So now this sanction essentially puts you in the position of spreading slanderous claims about other Christian bodies.

Slanderous in whose opinion? As far as I can see, no one's opinion who in fact matters, being that they are opinions not based on either justice or truth.

I'm not the first one to realize that there are "false gospels" and "false christs", even if they all nominally refer to the same supposed "Gospel" and "Christ." That the Romans of the early Christian period were unable to differentiate Jews from Christians does not mean we should confound the two - and that "the world" (plunged in ignorance and darkness) cannot see the difference between heresy and truth, does not mean we should give any parity to them either.

Quote

don't know about "false idea". It's very hard to get an accurate picture of what actually transpired because every source I can find is so blantantly biased. But the impression I get this that things happened, and that various groups of bishops stood off at a difference and condemned them. The one point that shines through al of this is that Orthodoxy was prepared to deal with a state that was indifferent to it, or a state that was intertwined with it (for good or ill), but that it was totally unprepared for a state that attempted to destroy it as an institution. If the Russian church had been entirely wiped out (at least as a visible institution), then the appearance of ROCOR in the USA would still have been a problem. The Arian situation is not a precedent; indeed, the biggest problem I see is that, demanding some precedent, the Arians are pressed into service as an analogy even though the situations are quite dissimilar.

It's hard to understand how you can fail to see any similarity (particularly when one factors the Catacomb Church into this)...

a) Moscow Patriarchate as state sponsored (in fact state established) Soviet organization - the only acceptable "church" for those living under Soviet dominion to involve themselves in. Back in the day, the Arian heirarchs were the only ones to have legitimacy as far as the Throne was concerned.

b) Both situations had their martyrs, who refused to be involved with these false churches, and confessors who gathered both in underground Churches (separated from the erring state churches in both situations), or fled to lands beyond the reach of he wicked ruler's influence.

Quote

Everyone realistically admits that the so-called Apostolic Canons are Post-Nicene.

Everyone? Well, now you've met one exception (btw., I mean apostolic in their import, as representing Apostolic prohibitions - not that I believe the Apostles codified their disciplines in this type of canonical format, which is something imported from Roman law).

Quote

The East and the West cannot even agree as to how many there are!

And Church Fathers disagreed as to the exact contents of the Holy Scriptures (a matter which has never formally been resolved, nor will it likely ever be) - does this mean we throw it all out? Hardly.

Quote

But that's begging the question! Who gets to say what is sacrilege anyway-- you or God? I'm betting on God, not on you.

So St.Paul was wrong to tell believers to have nothing to do with heretics and schismatics? By stretching the meaning of our Lord's words, you're simply creating an unneccessary contradiction.

If you would call us "unbelievers" and "infidels", then you speak falsely.

Adherance to heresy is divine faith? What exactly is unbelief in your opinion? Arianism? Monphysitism? By logical extension, if heresy does not render one an "unbeliever", then no amount of error does - up to outright infidelity (Judaism, Islam, etc.)

Intellectual/spiritual error doesn't come in quantity, but in quality. Or category, if you prefer. So this isn't a logical extension, but rather, a fallacy. There is a fundamental likeness between Presbyterians and ROCORians which simultaneously separates both from Moslems; if your taxonomy of religion disagrees, then it is trying to deny the truth that is there for everyone to see. There may be a subtlety of difference between Baptists and JWs, but even then there is a neat and simple dividing line.

Obviously in the greater world of Christianity there are lots of differences of opinion as to which differences are crucial, which are less significant, and which can be brushed over. For me, personally, the dividing line between Arianism and the various Nicene theologies is the most fundamental within Christianity. Arguing about the rest is entirely too big a battle to fight here.

By contrast, it seems to me that you are trying to equate everything from OCA (and maybe even ROCOR) to Hinduism. There are such obvious differences here that I doubt whether such an attitude can be reconciled with actual caring about knowledge of all that is so sweepingly condemned. If you are going to argue about what to me appears to be a fairly fine distinction between the OCA and ROCOR and ROAC, then it behooves you to acknowledge the great gulfs of difference that lie amidst these other groups.

Quote

Quote

But now you aren't aren't referring to a democracy, but a tyranny. Chesterton's "democracy" remark is quintessentially Anglican,

It could be argued that it is precisely because of his manner of thought that he ended up leaving the Anglican church...

Maybe, maybe not. That's a side issue.

Quote

Quote

and the point of such a democracy is that neither the past nor the present should hold a dictatorship over the other.

Here you introduce a very clever (and I hope unintentional) falsification of his thought - by falsely creating a parity/equality between "past" and "present." As far as Chesterton was concerned, alteration of traditions (whether social or religious) required an incredible amount of justification, including a true understanding of just why those traditions were instituted in the first place (and whether or not the situation creating them still exists.)

Well, for an exegesis of Chesterton, I will defer to my wife. I cannot find our copy of Orthodoxy at the moment. But it seems to me that this reads more as your opinion than as Chesterton's, and at any rate Lewis says much the same thing in The Abolition of Man from an inarguably Anglican viewpoint.

Quote

If we are to say Chesterton was correct in such an outlook, then your arguments thus far are undermined - you've repeatedly thrown out (as if it were self evident) that our modern situation is somehow totally different from that which motivated the Apostolic Canons...yet you've failed to justify this in the least.

Well, it is not for me to justify it, after all-- that is the work of the Orthodox bishops. (Also, the word "totally" is excessive. "Sufficiently" would be the accurate word.)

Quote

Quote

That's why it isn't a theological issue. The issue isn't the identity of the church; that can be taken as a given, acknowledging that other Christians hold to different theories.

So you propose a divorce between doctrinal positions and praxis?

No. I don't even propose a distinction. It is unnecessary to do so, because the distinction already exists-- even in Paul to whom you refer so often.

One can find, even in the canons, a certain casuistry of praxis. The whole Seeing Eye Dog Controversy balanced on a passage from the canons of Trullo that established a decidedly casuistrist principle. What inevitably struck me about the controversy was that the most dogged defenders of True Orthodoxy inevitably argued against the sense of the canon.

Quote

Quote

The issue with "ecumenism" is how the Orthodox doctrine of that identity should be realized in the conduct of its clergy and laity, with relationship to these other bodies.

But what if the truth is that those other bodies are not real churches at all?

Well, they are churches, insofar as the English language is concerned. The question is rather whether they embody The Church-- and then the degree to which this is important.

Quote

Fraternal prayer in such a situation would then be an excercise of of falsehood, as would any conversation or "joint statement" giving the impression that these bodies are in fact members of Christ.

This is where we keep coming back to this same problem. You impute a meaning to this; but the act need not intend this meaning. I am being led to the conclusion that you do so impute to justify the exclusion of the OCA and other less hardline Orthodox churches.

Quote

if you're going to insist on arguing from an Orthodox p.o.v. (arguing which is the "real Orthodoxy"), then you're going to have to demonstrate how such acts are possible when there are canons, and an underlying theological content, which forbid this.

I think not. Given that the OCA and other Orthodox bodies express a difference with this opinion, it seems to me that it is up to you to demonstrate that they are wrong. For my part, it seems to me that they get an essential aspect of the Christian message right that those whom you push as their replacement have fundamentally wrong. It is not something that I can express in a sentence, or even a reasonably short paragraph.

Quote

An interesting aside - if you want evidence that what you're attempting to argue for is not an Orthodox position, just look to this forum itself; even the folks involved with "mainstream Orthodox" juristictions know full well that the activities of the EP and the various "Orthodox" ecumenists are wrong.

I think you are misrepresenting them-- the fact that this argument is now being sustained largely by you and Paradosis (and that Linus is astonishingly lining up mostly on my side of this) is fair evidence. It seems to me that some of these activities are condemned and some are not, and that there is a great deal of confusion and allegation going around to confound the issue, to the point where one cannot even trust the evidence of a photograph at an event that surely did take place.

It comes down to this: ROCA and its various sister septs have become exactly as fractious as the Amish. To an outsider, the relationships of these groups are hugely confused, and the true differences are obscure. The one thing that stands out is the emphasis on doing this dividing, not to mention the moral machismo of belonging to a more demanding and purer sect than the rest. An outsider has to question whether these divisions ought to exist, even within the context of Orthodoxy alone.

Quote

It would only be possible if Orthodoxy could admit the "branch-theory" ecclessiology; and simply put, it cannot. Joint prayer as far as Orthodoxy is concerned, is the activity of brothers, sharing the same faith, for it is the activity of Christ's body - this applies even more strongly to public, liturgical acts.

And who is your neighbor, anyhow??

Again, your standing to explain what Orthodoxy holds is insufficient. If The OCA and GOA and Antiochian bishops (not to mention the EP himself) explain Orthodoxy different from you, then what?

Quote

The Holy Mysteries are prayers - intercourse between the Bride of Christ and the Almighty. This is not a very obvious idea in post-schism Latin thought, since the sacraments were made into mechanistic acts whose validity has little to do with who is celebrating them.

Oh, nonsense. It's bad enough to have you telling me that the Orthodox bishops have their own doctrine wrong, but this is so utterly off the mark about Western theology as to be laughable.

Skipping way ahead (his is getting rather repetitive):

Quote

Quote

But that's begging the question! Who gets to say what is sacrilege anyway-- you or God? I'm betting on God, not on you.

So St.Paul was wrong to tell believers to have nothing to do with heretics and schismatics? By stretching the meaning of our Lord's words, you're simply creating an unneccessary contradiction.

What it seems to me personally is that this is the kind of scripture reading that fundamentalists get criticised for making.

Sorry for the delay getting back to you. The last few days have been quite busy/tiring (I only had time to take a peek here.)

Quote

Intellectual/spiritual error doesn't come in quantity, but in quality. Or category, if you prefer. So this isn't a logical extension, but rather, a fallacy. There is a fundamental likeness between Presbyterians and ROCORians which simultaneously separates both from Moslems; if your taxonomy of religion disagrees, then it is trying to deny the truth that is there for everyone to see. There may be a subtlety of difference between Baptists and JWs, but even then there is a neat and simple dividing line.

Of course, this is according to you. Fair enough, since the same can be said of my own take on this.

Quote

Obviously in the greater world of Christianity there are lots of differences of opinion as to which differences are crucial, which are less significant, and which can be brushed over. For me, personally, the dividing line between Arianism and the various Nicene theologies is the most fundamental within Christianity. Arguing about the rest is entirely too big a battle to fight here.

I agree there is a question of "degrees". However, I think more than the question of the Lord Jesus' Deity qualifies as "fundamental". There are a whole host of other teachings which have a profound effect upon one's understanding of Christianity - I'd submit that they are so profound, that their presence or absense can radically alter what one even understands Christianity to basically be about. In this regard, I'd say that Orthodoxy and say, American style "McChristianity", have about as much in common as Orthodoxy and Buddhism (actually, in alot of ways, the various Buddhist sects are closer to the truth - it's mostly only the throwing around of Biblical factoids and the name of our Blessed Lord which cause Orthodoxy and various Protestant heresies to be thrown into the same section of comparative religious texts.)

Quote

Well, for an exegesis of Chesterton, I will defer to my wife. I cannot find our copy of Orthodoxy at the moment. But it seems to me that this reads more as your opinion than as Chesterton's, and at any rate Lewis says much the same thing in The Abolition of Man from an inarguably Anglican viewpoint.

I've heard some argue that Lewis could very well have gone down the road of Chesterton and other Anglicans of this vein, and have ended up a Roman Catholic. Irregardless, Chesterton (and Lewis') sentiment here is true, for it is an echo of what the Church of Christ has always believed to be true of Tradition (it's catholicity.) I just happen to think it's a very apt way of framing the question (and that, perhaps, can be said to be particularly "Anglican", or at least that "catholic tending" strain of Anglicanism that Chesterton and Lewis came from.)

Quote

Well, they are churches, insofar as the English language is concerned. The question is rather whether they embody The Church-- and then the degree to which this is important.

This is precisely where the teaching of the Church (and it is reflected in the canons) is coming at odds with modern innovation.

It is true that sects and schisms can have "ecclessial" elements - Orthodox rituals to varying extents, and correct doctrines on various subjects. But this is much different than the idea of them being "THE Church", in the sense of being Christ's Body. If anything, the Fathers spoke quite negatively of those outside of the Church possessing those "ecclessial" elements (viewing it as a form of theft, possessing things which they had to right to.)

While the more "primitive" view is that heretical mysteries are "invalid" (are not grace bearing, for they are not acts of the Church, even if they are correct "forms" - they are forms without content), and this is most often associated with Orthodox Christianity (though nowdays, only with "Old Calendarist" or "traditionalist" Orthodoxy...which, in my humble opinion is the only true "form"). HOWEVER, what is very interesting is that this view is not some unique, Byzantine/Oriental peculiarity, since it was held by the Latins even after they had broken from the Orthodox Church, though in a modified form.

For example, in the Summa Theologica, Thomas Aquinas teachings a form of this patristic doctrine - the only thing that's changed is the introduction of the idea of some sacraments having permanent "characters", and being very specific as to what that means (though even this is not too much of a stretch beyond the Orthodox position - though I think it's quite clear that Orthodoxy would disagree on the issue of Chrismation, and also that heretics can even leave a "character" with their rites). For example, while he believes that a schismatic mass is "valid" (un-Orthodox idea), he doesn't believe schismatics and heretics can benefit from such rites (do not receive grace from the oblation, nor grace from communion.)

Similarly, some traditionalist Roman Catholics to this day hold to the old Latin view that while a heretical baptism (say, a Lutheran one) may be "valid", for it to be salvific, repentence and confession of the Latin doctrine is necessary - otherwise, it is as an impenitently received baptism (character is imposed, but no infusion of grace.)

Thus, these ideas I'm expressing here regarding Orthodox ecclessiology and teaching of the sacraments is not some fringe, whacked out sectarian nonsense - it's simply that everyone else has perverted their doctrines on these matters, to facilitate their increasingly "inclusive" ideas about "the church."

Quote

This is where we keep coming back to this same problem. You impute a meaning to this; but the act need not intend this meaning. I am being led to the conclusion that you do so impute to justify the exclusion of the OCA and other less hardline Orthodox churches.

Some relevent Canons (at least as far as Orthodoxy is concerned), from the Apostolic Canons

Canon XLV.

Let a bishop, presbyter, or deacon, who has only prayed with heretics, be excommunicated: but if he has permitted them to perform any clerical office, let him be deposed.

(Comment: Do the ecumenists do this?)

Canon XLVI.

We ordain that a bishop, or presbyter, who has admitted the baptism or sacrifice of heretics, be deposed. For what concord hath Christ with Belial, or what part hath a believer with an infidel?

(Comment: Do the ecumenists do this? Btw., how do you not understand this canon to have doctrinal import?)

Canon XLVII.

Let a bishop or presbyter who shall baptize again one who has rightly received baptism, or who shall not baptize one who has been polluted by the ungodly, be deposed, as despising the cross and death of the Lord, and not making a distinction between the true priests and the false.

(Comment: Same as the above.)

These three canons have obvious doctrinal import; in fact, one even explicitly brings up the passage from St.Paul I cited earlier. One can reject the doctrine underlying these canons, but one cannot pretend that such a rejection is an acceptable Orthodox opinion.

Quote

I think not. Given that the OCA and other Orthodox bodies express a difference with this opinion, it seems to me that it is up to you to demonstrate that they are wrong.

I just have.

Quote

For my part, it seems to me that they get an essential aspect of the Christian message right that those whom you push as their replacement have fundamentally wrong.

You're welcome to your opinin - it's just not an Orthodox one; and that's been my whole point all along.

Quote

It comes down to this: ROCA and its various sister septs have become exactly as fractious as the Amish. To an outsider, the relationships of these groups are hugely confused, and the true differences are obscure.

I'll grant the "confusion" part. It is a scandal.

Quote

The one thing that stands out is the emphasis on doing this dividing, not to mention the moral machismo of belonging to a more demanding and purer sect than the rest. An outsider has to question whether these divisions ought to exist, even within the context of Orthodoxy alone.

Well, I am not entirely sure where you think the "line in the sand" is to be drawn. My point is simply that as far as the canons and the Fathers who drafted them were concerned, that "line" borders a realm of thought which is far more exclusive than you'd perhaps like it to be... your attribution of moral failings to this position is for me, neither here nor there.

Quote

Again, your standing to explain what Orthodoxy holds is insufficient. If The OCA and GOA and Antiochian bishops (not to mention the EP himself) explain Orthodoxy different from you, then what?

I'm sure more than one cynical (and understandbly confused/scandalized) pagan asked the same thing while witnessing any one of the various Christological heresies during the early Christian period - this unfortunate scandal which heretics create, of course didn't change the fact that it was the Orthodox party that was correct, no matter how powerful and influential the nominally "catholic" and "orthodox" heretics had become.

Quote

Oh, nonsense. It's bad enough to have you telling me that the Orthodox bishops have their own doctrine wrong, but this is so utterly off the mark about Western theology as to be laughable.

Actually, that's the problem - these "Orthodox" bishops have their own doctrine quite correct; problem is, it's not Orthodox.

As for my "laughable" take on latin sacramental teaching, I'd appreciate a corrective; either from you, or someone else. It should be quite easy, if what I've said is so obviously foolish.

As of this time, I do not see how you can make this remark, not in the least, since the Latins themselves teach that so long as "valid apostolic succession" is in tact (understood to be the proper laying on of hands by the proper person, irregardless of his beliefs or ecclessial standing), the persons "ordained" by said "valid bishop" have the ability to transform bread and wine into the precious Body and Blood of the Lord Jesus Christ. How is that not teaching a mechanistic doctrine of the sacraments, as if they were hermetic rites that, if properly concocted with the right ingredients, will render a certain result? As if anyone can make God do anything, or successfully kidnap His Holy Mysteries, by imitating the outward particulars of them in their schism?

Quote

Skipping way ahead (his is getting rather repetitive)

Oh no, I'm being spoken of in the third person. I feel so terribly dismissed.

It seems to me that the heart of the issue, Seraphim, is hidden in the comments you make about Chesterton and Lewis. As I said before, I can only make limited comments concerning the former. However, it is easy enough to discover that Orthodoxy was written nearly two decades before Chesterton's conversion. Plotting a line from one to the other is perhaps reasonable, but it is hardly valid to project the convert of 1929 onto the author of 1911. People make the same error when addressing Newman's conversion, imputing the views of the cardinal upon the much earlier tractarian, when the tracts themselves speak to a considerable development of Newman's thought.

And as Keble remained in contrast to Newman, so Lewis remained in contrast to Chesterton. I don't know who is pushing these theories of Lewis as "Catholic" (maybe Peter Kreeft), but they don't deal well with the fact that he did not convert. Lewis's writings are thoroughly Anglican from beginning to end; I'm afraid I have to reject these theories of his Romanism and his ostenisbly dogmatic reference to tradition as wishful thinking.

At the same time your reference to contrasting opinions on the matter is of the same ilk as my comments about OCA vs. ROAC authorities. Referring dogmatically to the Apostolic Canons begs the question, since after all the deeper question is whether they should indeed be taken that way. One finds this kind of disagreement rather commonly when looking into Orthodoxy. Even taking into account that I cannot embrace Orthodoxy as my church, it seems to me that the "Dogmatic Traditionalist" viewpoint espoused for ROAC by yourself is not defensible without taking it as a given.

And there is still the problem that ROAC as an authority invites doubt. ROCOR's own origin is not without its difficulties, after all. My problem here isn't so much disagreeing with you as it is your unwillingness to acknowledge the reality of all these various disagreements. I cannot indefinitely and at length argue this. But your effective falsification of Lewis and the preposterous epistemology of religion that you present negate any authority you might attempt to claim for your presentation of Orthodox theology. NOt to mention the calendar arguments. I've been all over the canons and over the history of the calendar calculations, and it's quite clear that the new calendarists and the "modified Julian" groups are right, and the old calendarists are guilty of presenting a false picture of the matter. And it seems you don't even know what the Aleppo formula is.

I've been all over the canons and over the history of the calendar calculations, and it's quite clear that the new calendarists and the "modified Julian" groups are right, and the old calendarists are guilty of presenting a false picture of the matter.

When even those inside the Church do not understand the matter, I suppose it should not come as a shock when those outside of the Church do not understand either.

Logged

"The bed is too short to stretch out on, the blanket too narrow to wrap around you." (Isa. 28:20)

I've been all over the canons and over the history of the calendar calculations, and it's quite clear that the new calendarists and the "modified Julian" groups are right, and the old calendarists are guilty of presenting a false picture of the matter.

When even those inside the Church do not understand the matter, I suppose it should not come as a shock when those outside of the Church do not understand either.

Well, since the hardcore Old Calendarists are asserting that those who do not "understand" the issue as the O.C.s do are outside the Church, this is hardly a ringing condemnation.

It's better for us to cease this discussion. As far as I can tell, nothing I bring forward will make a difference: even canonical and dogmatic considerations seem to have zero weight as far as you're concerned (not an Orthodox position) - and if that means absolutely nothing in such a discussion, then there is no point in continuing further; this is clearly becoming a game of making it up as you go along, which again, is not Orthodox.

Not that I had any illusions about you being Orthodox (nor have you passed yourself off as such); which makes me question why I was debating this with you in the first place. It would be like me weighing into a conversation on which is the "correct" form of Islam (an odd thing for me to do, since strictly speaking I think both of them to be erroneous.) That, above all else, is my fault.

Orthodox Christians in Ireland were blessed this past weekend by the visitof the wonder-working Kursk Root Ikon of the Theotokos.

The ancient ikon, whose remarkable history has been intertwined with that ofRussian Orthodox Christians for seven centuries, visited Orthodox churchesin Dublin and Belfast.

On Friday evening, Father Vadim Zakrevsky of the Russian Orthodox Cathedralof the Dormition (ROCOR) in London brought the ikon to the newly-establishedRussian Orthodox Church of St Peter and St Paul in Dublin (ROC-MP), where aMoleben and Akathist were served. In attendance were Father GeorgeZavershinsky, rector of St Peter and St Paul church, as well as ArchbishopAnatoly of Kerch (ROC-Sourozh Diocese).

On Saturday afternoon and Sunday morning, the ikon returned to Dublin toAnnunciation Greek Orthodox Church (Greek Archdiocese of Thyateira), wheremany hundreds of faithful gathered to worship together and venerate the holyikon. The Sunday Liturgy was concelebrated by Father Ireneu Craciun, rectorof Annunciation church, Father Vadim and Father Geoffrey. Also serving wasFather Deacon Christian Gheorghiu of Annunciation church.

In his sermon, Father Vadim reminded the gathered faithful that the properresponse to the tremendous blessing which the Lord bestows upon His peopleis a life of spiritual struggle, prayer and fasting -- fasting not only fromfood at appointed times, but fasting at all times from sin, from temptation,from all that prevents us from honouring and worshipping God in company withthe Holy Theotokos and all the saints.

Speaking after the Divine Liturgy, Father Ireneu recalled the ikon's firstvisit to the Dublin in July 1993, when the church was going through a periodof crisis. The community was homeless, having been evicted from the rentedpremises they had used for a number of years. The visit of the holy ikon hadbrought much comfort in the midst of this distress, and within a month ofthe ikon's visit, the current church property had been miraculously found.

In his remarks, Father Geoffrey reflected on the significance that this HolyLiturgy and visit of the Kursk Root ikon fell between the New and OldCalendar celebrations of the Feast of the Dormition of the Theotokos. Herecalled that, on the eve of the falling asleep of the Virgin Mary, theApostles who had spread out to all corners of the inhabited world to spreadthe Gospel were miraculously brought together in one place. Father Geoffreygave thanks to God for a similar gathering of Orthodox Christians from allparts of Ireland and beyond, from different churches and differentnationalities, coming together to worship in true unity, sharing One Bodyand One Cup. He expressed his hope that this Orthodox unity in Ireland wouldbe the lasting legacy of the ikon's visit.

Following the Divine Liturgy, Father Vadim returned to London where the ikonwill remain for the Feast of the Dormition. Archbishop Mark will then returnwith the ikon to New York later in the week.

Looks like the barriers between concelebration are breaking down almost everywhere except among some hardliners in the USA

Come'on Hypo, it's a news story, not a joint agreement signed by bishops. Don't read into it more than is there (though I'll be interested to see if the synod comes down on this priest). Rest assured, no barriers are breaking down. In fact, as world Orthodoxy continues to sign joint agreements recognizing heterodox sacraments (not to mention falling deeper into the trap of ecumenism, falsely thinking they will be able to witness better with the recent concessions and increased presence), the barriers are being built up more and reinforced.

« Last Edit: August 30, 2003, 08:16:44 AM by Paradosis »

Logged

"The bed is too short to stretch out on, the blanket too narrow to wrap around you." (Isa. 28:20)

Perhaps there would not be a need for a negative term (world Orthodoxy) if you had not imported a term from the ecumenical movement (Canonical Orthodox Churches) that distorted the picture for those unfamiliar with Orthodox ecclesiology

« Last Edit: August 30, 2003, 12:06:16 PM by Paradosis »

Logged

"The bed is too short to stretch out on, the blanket too narrow to wrap around you." (Isa. 28:20)

PATRIARCH BARTHOLOMEWATTEMPTS TO STRONG-ARMTHE CHURCH INTO UNION WITHTHE MONOPHYSITESUnrestrained and unhindered, Patriarch Bartholomew proceeds to actualize union with the Monophysites. He impudently obliterated both movements opposing union with the heretical Monophysites. In the one case he condemned, with a "higher synod," the Patriarch of Jerusalem who opposed the union with the Monophysites. In order to mislead the public Bartholomew claimed that the Patriarch of Jerusalem intruded in another jurisdiction. In essence there was no such intrusion of any sort whatsoever. In the other case, as soon as he was informed that the Holy Community of Mount Athos had commissioned a study by a committee of abbots to suggest a course of action in the light of rumored unification, and before the Holy Community unanimously resolved and declared her decision to approve the condemnation of the unification with the Monophysites, the Patriarch proceeded to swiftly punish the Athonite monks. Thus they could not express their opinion as they did on the Balamand Agreement, and moreover he justified himself by claiming that they allegedly "displayed misconduct towards the Patriarchal Exarchate."

In the current year Patriarch Bartholomew inaugurated his visits with the heretical Patriarchate of the Monophysites. Patriarch Bartholomew conducted a visit following an invitation by the Monophysite Patriarch of Ethiopia between the 11th and 20th of January (1995). Bartholomew's synodia consisted of the Metropolitans Joachim of Chalcedon, Meliton of Philadelphia, Theoklitos of Metron, Michael of Austria, and Meletios Kalamaras of Neokopolis and Prevasa. He even chose the timing of the visit to coincide with the Monophysite feast of Theophany so that he could celebrate the feast with them for a second time. The media reporters alleged the crowd of Monophysites who arrived for the feast of Theo phany came because of Bartholomew. Besides why shouldn't the heretics in their delusion enjoy receiving a Patriarch, especially one who claims to represent all Orthodoxy that has "realized" her mistake and comes to reconciliate.

The real meaning of this visit is the expression of remorse and repentance. This official visit carries the message.. "You Monophysites assumed certain extreme positions in the past. But the Fourth Ecumenical Council and the Fifth, Sixth, and the Seventh that came thereafter likewise deviated. Times have changed and a new age has dawned on Orthodoxy, and the correction of the Ecumenical Councils and the new interpretation of the Bible has begun"! Church receptions, common prayers, and doxologies took place. In short, a complete recognition of the heresy of monophysitism.

In the city of Auxum, where he visited the ancient Monophysite Church of the Mother of God, Bartholomew said to the Ethiopian bishops:

"You are truly blessed. While the Old Israel laments destruction [of the Temple of Solomon], you rejoice in the divine services and the glorification of the Lord in this holy temple."! But, Bartholomew, the Lord does not dwell in man-made temples, neither does He rest in the "services" of the misbelieving heretics. God is a spirit, and they that worship Him must worship Him in spirit and in truth, as the Lord said to the Samaritan Woman.

Addressing himself to all the Monophysites, Bartholomew said, "We came here as brothers to brothers in Christ, as members of the one, ancient and undivided Eastern Orthodox family that, having unfortunately lost her unity fifteen centuries ago, today seeks and rediscovers it by God's Grace. It was chiefly for the present reconciliation and unification that this trip was undertaken by us." (Apogevmitini, Jan.29, 1995)

Monophysites are not "brothers in Christ." Heretical Monophysites are not one family [a new ecumenical term] with the Orthodox. The reasons for their condemnation by the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Seventh Ecumenical Councils have never been annulled, nor have they repented in order to become members of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. That trip's aim was a traitorous and strong-armed unification. Patriarch Bartholomew, following the example of the Patriarch of Antioch, came for ecclesiastical communion and common prayer with the heretical Monophysites. Communions such as this are no longer criticized, but they are passed in silence and downgraded to a mere formality. Bartholomew, pointing out the "mistakes" by the Ecumenical Councils of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church said, "The large Christian family gathers again, and the Church has come out of her isolation that past mistakes and painful historical circumstances had imposed on her. As evidence we point to the current successful conclusion of the dialogue with the Ethiopian Church." (Nea, January ~, 1995)

All these events indicate the violation of the holy canons that prohibit ecclesiastical communion of the Orthodox with the heretics. Unfortunately, they are advancing unrestrained and completely unopposed towards the pan-heresy of ecumenism.

Hypo-Ortho

You got me on that one, I haven't a clue I assume you will tell me, though?

I just noticed, Justin (Paradosis), in reading in another forum that the HOCNA (Holy Orthodox Metropolis of Boston) "Metroplitan" EPHRAIM, a schismatic from the Orthodox (including the ROCOR) viewpoint, is one who is exceedingly fond of using the epithet "WORLD Orthodoxy" in order to disparage all the historical ancient Eastern Orthodox patriarchates as well as all the other autocephalous and autonomous Orthodox Churches throughout the world which do not recognize the HOCNA as Orthodox, but which do indeed see the HOCNA as having cut itself off from the Body of the Church. Now, I'm not saying that "Metropolitan" EPHRAIM originated the epithet "WORLD Orthodoxy," mind you, but I am saying that the epithet is fondly used by some of the schismatics in the self-styled "True" Orthodox Churches.

Hypo-Ortho

Someone who apparently lurks here at OC.net sent me the title of this book a few days ago: Something Is Stirring in World Orthodoxy (Paperback, 1978) by Stanley S. Harakas

He was more right than he knew

Father Stanley Harakas, a respected priest of the GOA, I don't think, Justin, hardly used the term "World Orthodoxy" here in the same way as would the schismatic HOCNA's "Metropolitan" EPHRAIM. Fr. Stanley, I should think, rather used the term as an alternative to "universal."

It's better for us to cease this discussion. As far as I can tell, nothing I bring forward will make a difference: even canonical and dogmatic considerations seem to have zero weight as far as you're concerned (not an Orthodox position) - and if that means absolutely nothing in such a discussion, then there is no point in continuing further; this is clearly becoming a game of making it up as you go along, which again, is not Orthodox.

Well, part of the problem is shown in your next paragraph, with its analogy to a discussion of Islam among us. Never mind the implicit insult; the analogy is defective because it brushes over the history that Orthodoxy and the West do in fact share. I know little of Islam, and frankly I see little point in learning a lot about it, because some of the things I do know show that they have a bunch of basic points wrong. If the prophet of God can't get his story straight about what Christianity actually teaches, then I have no use for his prophecies.

But that's not the situation we have here. The materials you cite as authorities are part of the common heritage of our churches. Indeed, for an Anglican, the ongoing history of Orthodoxy is also part of our heritage. And if we get things wrong about that, we certainly ought to be corrected.

What I see, however, is a dispute within Orthodoxy-- and here I mean "Orthodoxy" to signify those churches that call themselves Orthodox (and which have any plausible claim to this title-- I don't care to deal with all the "Mar Bob" and dubious Old Catholic pretenders). And it is a dspute about the significance of the material which Orthodoxy shares with Catholicms and Anglicanism. Therefore, I do have some interest in the matter even outside of this forum.

The issue of praying with heretics ought to be different from the issue of the calendar. But looking at the canons it can easily seen that they do not demand usage of the Dionysian calculation. Indeed, a real hardhead could assert that if the Alexandrian church were to change its calculation, the rest of the Orthodox church would be forced to follow suit.

It is striking to me how I refer to things and use words which I'm pretty sure that lots of people here don't recognize, and nobody says a thing. Nobody has even asked what the Aleppo solution is. Yet all of this is out there, plain to see, through the wonders of modern technology.

The reason why you are doubting whether you should have engaged me at all is, I suspect, because you consider me fraki[/]. Truth doesn't matter if it comes out of the mouth of a heretic.

From Keble: It is striking to me how I refer to things and use words which I'm pretty sure that lots of people here don't recognize, and nobody says a thing. Nobody has even asked what the Aleppo solution is. Yet all of this is out there, plain to see, through the wonders of modern technology.

That brings up an interesting point.

I will admit that I have not had any idea what you were talking about when you wrote about the calendars, the problems involved and the possible solutions.

What is the "Aleppo Solution"?

If you would care to explain, I would be glad to read your posts.

Honestly, I never cared that much about the calendar one way or another. Old or New, as long as we honor Christ and the saints, that's the way I have looked at it.

Logged

The first condition of salvation is to keep the norm of the true faith and in no way to deviate from the established doctrine of the Fathers.- Pope St. Hormisdas

Most of us (me included) have a hard enough time with basic ecclesiology, christology,etc. Don't be shocked when we don't drop everything to hear about the latest, greatest calendar discussion/debate/agreement.

Logged

"The bed is too short to stretch out on, the blanket too narrow to wrap around you." (Isa. 28:20)

From Keble: It is striking to me how I refer to things and use words which I'm pretty sure that lots of people here don't recognize, and nobody says a thing. Nobody has even asked what the Aleppo solution is. Yet all of this is out there, plain to see, through the wonders of modern technology.

That brings up an interesting point.

I will admit that I have not had any idea what you were talking about when you wrote about the calendars, the problems involved and the possible solutions.

What is the "Aleppo Solution"?

If you would care to explain, I would be glad to read your posts.

The Aleppo solution was a new paschalion worked out by a group meeting in (surprise) Aleppo in the late 1990s. The solution they came up with was to abandon the Dionysian calculation which approximates the solar and lunar motion, and which is the basis for both the old and new calendars. In its place, they were going to use the "actual" lunar and solar positions as seen in Jerusalem, so that Easter would then fall on the first Sunday after the day of the full moon in Jerusalem after the equinox. I put "actual" in quotes because this motion would be calculated ahead of time by the astronomers (we can do that these days, of course). The original plan was to put this into effect starting in (if I remember correctly) 2002 because in 2001 everyone observed Easter on the same date.

Naturally the whole thing fell through because a bunch of Orthodox churches wouldn't go along. (I'm not sure which ones.) There is some documentation of this on the internet somewhere but it will take me a while to hunt it donw.

Most of us (me included) have a hard enough time with basic ecclesiology, christology,etc. Don't be shocked when we don't drop everything to hear about the latest, greatest calendar discussion/debate/agreement.

The Aleppo solution was an ecumenical attempt at putting everyone on the same calendar. From what I can tell, it failed precisely because of these other issues that have nothing to do with the actual content of the calendar per se. I've heard rationalizations of the pascalion of the old calendar (never mind the fixed feasts), which strike me as precisely rationalizations; and we've been around the canons, which do not mention the specific calculations to be made.

So what happens when a cooperative effort is made to put everyone in the East and the West on the same calendar? It gets shot down, not because ther eis anything wrong with the calculation, but because various churches-- especially Orthodox churches-- use the calendar issue as a vehicle for their ecclesiological spats.

If you will permit me a totally Anglican comment: To me, personally, this doesn't look like charity at all. It looks like hubris.

There is a lot more in the calendar issue than meets the eye. In 1969-70, under pressure from the Geneva-based World Council of Churches, the Jerusalem Patriarchate had introduced the 'New Julian' Calendar (as had the Bulgarian, Macedonian, and other Patriarchates, since there was overwhelming pressure at the time to introduce the New Calendar). That same year, on Great Saturday (New Calendar), when from time immemorial the Holy Fire descends on the Lord's Sepulchre, this year the Fire did not appear. Shocked, Patriarch Benedict of Jerusalem commanded that the Old Calendar, which had been in use until then, be restored immediately in the jurisdiction of his Patriarchate. The next year, the Holy Fire once again descended on the Lord's Sepulchre on Great Saturday (Old Calendar); the same occurs even until the present.

The miracle of the Holy Fire is extremely well documented by accounts going back to the 4th century. It has occured every year on Great Saturday since that time and the only time it is recorded to have not occured was the year the Jerusalem Patriarch was put on the New Calendar.

Something similiar occured in a small church, the location of which I can't remember at the moment (Meltinas), where every Pascha the baptismal font miraculously filled with water after which their catechumen were baptised and the water left in the same manner in which it had come (there was no spring or other water source nearby). When the region switched to the New Calendar, they were dismayed when on Pascha the font remained empty. However, on the day of Pascha according to the Old Calendar, they witnessed the font filling with water as it had done every other year. Naturally, they switched back to the Old Calendar.

unworthy John (who worships in a greek church on the New Calendar but hopes that one day it will restore the Old)

There is a lot more in the calendar issue than meets the eye. In 1969-70, under pressure from the Geneva-based World Council of Churches, the Jerusalem Patriarchate had introduced the 'New Julian' Calendar (as had the Bulgarian, Macedonian, and other Patriarchates, since there was overwhelming pressure at the time to introduce the New Calendar). That same year, on Great Saturday (New Calendar), when from time immemorial the Holy Fire descends on the Lord's Sepulchre, this year the Fire did not appear. Shocked, Patriarch Benedict of Jerusalem commanded that the Old Calendar, which had been in use until then, be restored immediately in the jurisdiction of his Patriarchate. The next year, the Holy Fire once again descended on the Lord's Sepulchre on Great Saturday (Old Calendar); the same occurs even until the present.

Let me guess: you read this in A Scientific Examination of the Orthodox Church Calendar, or a website quoting the same. But you have not quoted the beginning of the passage:

"In August of 1971, Nikolai [now Hieromonk Theophan] and I (Hieromonk Cassian) were coming back from rest and medical treatment at Narechen. Passing through the town of Plovdiv, we called in at the Metochion of Zographou to venerate the tomb of the Holy King Boris [ 906]. Schema-monk Seraphim of Zographou was in attendance at the tomb. He told us that recently (1969-70), under pressure from the Geneva-based World Council of Churches, (.....)"

The parentheses in italics are mine; the passage continues exactly as appears in Prodromos' message. This is the only mention of this I could find using Google, though I tried several different ways. One would think that such a remarkable event, with many witnesses, in a modern city in modern times, would be widely recorded. Yet the only mention of it is as of a traveller's tale, related in a remote shrine by an obscure monk.

And even then it does not properly answer the question. If the bulk of the Orthodox Churches were to adopt a new pascalion, would it affect such a miracle? Nobody knows-- if the fire indeed did not show in 1970, it may well have been the deviance of Jerusalem that was at fault, rather than the calculation per se.

Sure. God wants the faithful to know that he exists, so he makes fire appear (or an icon cry) on the same day every year -- and only a few people witness it. What does it say in the scripture about asking for signs?

Kinda like why aliens only seem to kidnap the weirdo's but never do "The Day the Earth Stood Still" thing (i.e. Landing in the middle of D.C.)

Keble, you are correct, that is where I copied the quote from but I have come across the same information from a number of sources which I didn't find using google. Google is great, but it is far from perfect and seems to be getting less so every day as the content on the Internet grows. A few years ago I was able to find stuff on the "net" a lot more easily. Are we now getting to the point of saying "if google doesn't find it, it doesn't exist or it isn't true"? Still, I will try and find my other sources again and do a bit more digging for background as you are otherwise perfectly correct in your criticism.

TomS, this particular miracle has been happening every year since the fourth century in that exact same location on that same (moveable feast) day. When the Armenians paid the Turks to keep the Greeks out of the church so they could receive the Holy Light instead of them, one of the columns at the church entrance split and the Holy Light came out from there and lit the JP's lambada. These signs were given by God, they were not "asked for" as you suggest and these "supposed " miracles have been witnessed by thousands of pilgrims every year. The Holy Light is then taken by aeroplane to Orthodox churches all over the world so that on Great Sunday, at midnight, we can all light our lambadas from the same flame. There is nothing suspect about this miracle. It has become an integral part of our Paschal services.

unworthy John

Logged

Hypo-Ortho

The annual "Miracle of the Holy Fire" is indeed well known by all pious Orthodox Christians, and it is factual, like it or not, that it has only occurred on the date of the Orthodox Paschalion reckoned by the Julian Calendar. Moreover, even when under the domination of Islam or bribed by Armenians so that they should enter the Holy Sepulchre first, the Greek Orthodox Patriarch of Jerusalem and his faithful are the only ones to whom the Holy Fire is originally given--*they* then share it with the others, e.g., Armenians, Latins, etc.

I can personally testify that I have seen several photographs of this annual miracle.

The annual "Miracle of the Holy Fire" is indeed well known by all pious Orthodox Christians, and it is factual, like it or not, that it has only occurred on the date of the Orthodox Paschalion reckoned by the Julian Calendar.

I don't know about "factual"-- I have to doubt that you have the 1600-odd testimonies to establish this utterly. Be that as it may, we are now bumping up, again, against the problem that the pascalion used now is not the paschalion that was used then. The Dionysian calculation was not introduced at Nicea, after all, but some decades later. In the interim, the phrase "reckoned by the Julian calendar" was, from what I can see, meaningless.

Quote

I can personally testify that I have seen several photographs of this annual miracle.

I'm pretty sure that the photographs that you've seen show the fire being carried out of the inner church. Be that as it may, one would expect that in 1970 such a photograph could (and probably was) taken which would resolve the matter of the anecdote in question conclusively.

I watched the video of it and let me tell you it's real. When you see the fire jump from hanging oil lamp to hanging oil lamp and you see priests stick the fire in their beards and nothing happens, you know it is for real.

My priest once doubted the miracle of the Holy Fire. On Holy Saturday he was thinking about it while he was lighting his lampadas. He thought to himself, "I think that thing is fake" at which time a flame jumped from his candle to the lampada and ignited it. He never spoke ill of that miracle again!

I am in several minds about the Holy Fire. Here is an article just published in the Glastonbury Review. It still doesn't make me sure either way.

===============================================

Holy Fire Dispute in Jerusalem

For centuries the Greek Orthodox and the Armenian Orthodox Patriarchates of Jerusalem have jointly conducted the Ceremony of the Holy Fire which takes place annually on Holy Saturday at the Church of the Holy Sepulchre. The Greek Patriarch or his representative is accorded an honorary priority but is accompanied by an Armenian bishop or a priest representing the Armenian Patriarch. Although there have been many disputes in past centuries, these have been avoided in recent years because both parties have studiously adhered to the Status Quo respecting one another. However, in 2002 a dispute arose involving the newly elected Greek Orthodox Patriarch, Irenaios I. This was referred to the Status Quo Committee of both patriarchates, who met twice and discussed the issues in February 2003, but without reaching a final conclusion.

The Tomb of Christ is contained within a free standing apsidal structure, known as the Edicule, which stands under the Rotunda of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre. The entry is through a single doorway at the east end leading into a roughly square 'Chapel of the Angel' opposite which is the inner entrance to a short passageway leading into the Tomb Chamber. This is so low and narrow that only one fairly slim person can go in at a time, whilst because half of the Tomb Chamber consists of the burial couch, there is standing or kneeling room inside for only two persons. By acknowledging and respecting the order of priority, the Greek Patriarch or his representative goes into the Tomb Chamber first, followed by the Armenian representative.

Once inside the Tomb Chamber the Greek Patriarch or his representative and the Armenian representative kneel down next to each other in front of the stone on which our Lord was laid after his death, holding bunches of unlit candles and say their private prayers. After that there appears to be differing accounts of what actually takes place. The Greek Church asserts that the lighting of Holy Fire is a miracle, "fire from heaven", and that when their Patriarch says "certain prayers that have been handed down to us through the centuries" fire from heaven appears. "Light proceeds from the core of the stone - a blue, indefinable light which after some time kindles closed oil lamps as well as the two candles of the Patriarch" The Armenians by asserting that the Greek Patriarch or his representative lights his candles first from a special oil-lamp that was brought in earlier followed by the Armenian Bishop, does not claim a miraculous origin for the Holy Fire.

Having exchanged Paschal greetings either inside the Tomb Chamber or by the pedestal of the Stone of the Angel in the Chapel of the Angel they make their exeat. Since the Armenian is closer to the exit, he comes out first from the Tomb Chamber to the Chapel of the Angel followed by the Greek Patriarch both carrying the torches of the Holy Fire. Here they proceed towards round windows or openings which are in the Chapel of the Angel, the Greek Patriarch to the northern hole and the Armenian Bishop to the southern hole through which they pass them out respectively to the attendant torch-bearers of their communities. Then the Greek Patriarch knocks at the closed door of the Edicule to be opened and emerges first with torches in hand blessing the congregation, followed by the Armenian holding up his torch. At this point the Copts and the Syrians enter the Chapel of the Angel to light their candles.

In 2002 Father Samuel, the Armenian representative, accompanied the Greek Patriarch into the Tomb Chamber. After lighting their torches of the Holy Fire from the oil-lamp, while still inside the Tomb, the Patriarch held and slightly pulled Father Samuel's left arm telling him to go to his left side so that he himself would come out first to the Chapel of the Angel contrary to the traditional practice. Father Samuel objected to this suggestion and had to come out first from the Tomb. As Father Samuel approached the southern hole and was lighting other candles set there in order to pass them out, the Patriarch reached from behind him and pushed him away from the window. Thereupon there was a brief scuffle between the two.

In the discussions intended to resolve this conflict, Patriarch Irenaios put forward the suggestion to the Armenian Patriarch, Torkom II, that the Armenian representative charged with the duty of conducting the Holy Fire Ceremony with him, should not enter the Tomb Chamber with him, but should stand outside by the pedestal of the Stone of the Angel in the Chapel of the Angel and should receive the Holy Fire from the Patriarch. This was unacceptable to the Armenians as it violated the Status Quo.

With matters still unresolved there were fears that the feuding factions might result in violence this Pascha. Israeli police had threatened to bar attendance to all but a few hundred worshippers if the sides did not reach an accord. Fortunately because of a last-minute deal brokered by the Israeli police events passed off peacefully. The cost of the temporary compromise, however, has been the widening of divisions between the two churches.

Archbishop Aristarchos, General Secretary of the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate's Holy Synod, said that this year the ritual passed off peacefully because the Armenians agreed not to enter the tomb at the same time as the Greek Orthodox. The archbishop said Greek Orthodox leaders would make every effort to achieve reconciliation with the Armenian Orthodox representatives. "No one can deny that relations have been disturbed. But both of us need to try not to alienate the other any further," he said. "I hope we will be successful, with God's help, and that we can reach a [long-standing] agreement without any involvement with the Israelis."

Hypo-Ortho

Sadly, Anastasios, there will always be skeptics and "doubting Thomas's," even among some of our own. It is more to be expected from the non-Orthodox though. I have personally witnessed a few miracles in my lifetime, so I *KNOW* for sure that God still works them!

Hypo-Ortho

Well, luckily for those skeptical Orthodox among us at least, we don't have to accept the Miracle of the Holy Fire as an article of faith anymore than we have to accept the Shroud of Turin or the existence of Washington, DC, as genuine.

Sadly, Anastasios, there will always be skeptics and "doubting Thomas's," even among some of our own. It is more to be expected from the non-Orthodox though. I have personally witnessed a few miracles in my lifetime, so I *KNOW* for sure that God still works them!

It's not the miracle per se that I would doubt, but rather the tale about what supposedly happened in 1970.

And if you had come to Summerfest, we would have not only brought you into the presence of DC, but also shown you the reality of Ebor!

Sadly, Anastasios, there will always be skeptics and "doubting Thomas's," even among some of our own. It is more to be expected from the non-Orthodox though. I have personally witnessed a few miracles in my lifetime, so I *KNOW* for sure that God still works them!

Hypo-Ortho

I'm with you, Brother Hypo.

I experienced an entire series of miraculous answers to prayer in connection with four visits to the holy relics of St. Matryona at the Pokrovsky Monastery in Moscow in 2001.

Doors opened at the U.S. Embassy in Moscow for my wife in record time, and her scheduled visa interview - September 12, 2001 - was miraculously moved up to September 6. We all know what happened on Sept. 11. The Embassy shut down for several days afterwards. Visa interviews were postponed indefinitely and visas became very difficult to acquire.

But my wife got her visa . . . before 9/11 changed everything . . . thanks to the prayers of St. Matryona and God's grace in answering them.

My wife also prayed for a baby. Our little redheaded Anna was the answer, born on October 6, 2002, on the anniversary of our Orthodox Church wedding!

I also believe in the Holy Fire and I DEFINITELY believe in miraculous weeping icons. I believe in the incorruptibles, as well.

I don't expect miracles or look for them and I certainly don't demand them as proof.

But God can and will do the impossible for His people who believe in His name.

Glory to you, O God, glory to you!

Logged

The first condition of salvation is to keep the norm of the true faith and in no way to deviate from the established doctrine of the Fathers.- Pope St. Hormisdas